Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

SELBY BRIDGE BILL

Considered; to be read the Third time.

METALS SOCIETY BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time and committed

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

North Greetwell (Traffic Conditions)

Mr. Leigh: asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he is satisfied with traffic conditions in the village of North Greetwell in Lincolnshire.

The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): Over recent years the Department has imposed a 50 mph speed limit, put up new warning and direction signs, changed the road markings, and we are now providing right turning lanes at the junctions with roads to Nettleham and Reepham to the east of North Greetwell.

Mr. Leigh: Now that the completion of the A158 and A15 link road will cause more traffic to roar through the

village, to the distress and dismay of my constituents, will my hon. Friend implement a ban on overtaking, which was called for as long ago as 1977 by my predecessor, Sir Marcus Kimball?

Mrs. Chalker: I understand the problem, can be caused when a trunk road which is completely straight and flat passes through a village, but it would be difficult, if not impossible, to enforce such a ban. However, I am prepared to consider the need for further right turning lanes in the area in order to protect the traffic that has to move out from the left hand side of the road.

East Anglia (Public Transport)

Mr. Yeo: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to improve public transport in east Anglia.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): British Rail has had approval for substantial electrification within and to East Anglia.

Mr. Yeo: I am sure my hon. Friend shares my desire to see as many people as possible using BR in east Anglia. To that end, will he consider encouraging BR to take advantage of the Manpower Services Commission scheme to improve some of the rural railway stations in east Anglia, many of which are in a rather sorry state?

Mr. Mitchell: That is an interesting and helpful suggestion. The youth training scheme is primarily a matter for the Department of Employment. In mid-February BR recruited 936 YTS trainees. Sixty have been taken into permanent jobs and 730 remained on the scheme. Last month the Eastern region had 160 trainees.

Mr. Prescott: In his concern for rural transport, will the Minister recognise that since 1979 about 66 million vehicle miles in stage carriage services have been lost in rural areas? Is it not about time that he got together with the Secretary of State and looked at the interests of rural people instead of giving the kind of answers that he has given today?

Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman will realise that his question covers a period in which both parties have been in Government——

Mr. Prescott: I said in 1979.

Mr. Mitchell: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. It was a continuation of a trend that had been apparent long before then, as the hon. Gentleman well knows.

British Rail (Investment)

Mr. Prescott: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what is the total amount of investment in British Rail sanctioned by the Government since May 1979; what is the total amount of investment withdrawn by the board, excluding the advanced passenger train; and what amount of investment he has presently before him for consideration.

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): The Government have sanctioned well over £2,000 million for British Rail's investment programmes. BR has withdrawn requests for approval of specific projects worth about £300 million. The only project currently before me is electrification of the east coast main line, worth £240 million.

Mr. Prescott: Will the Secretary of State now recognise that over one third of the investment that has been withdrawn by British Rail, according to its request, has exposed it to the charge that it has sufficient funds? Will he now accept that the British Rail system is under-invested and under-funded compared with Europe, and that this is likely to lead to a reduction of 3,000 miles of track, as suggested in the 1983 report? Is it not time that he ended his complicity with the British Rail management and looked to the support of the railway system?

Mr. Ridley: I am very happy with my relationship with British Rail whereby any investment projects that it proposes are approved or refused very quickly. That has enabled British Rail to proceed without delay with all the viable investments that it wants to make. The fact that BR is not investing more is not a sign of absence of virility. Investment is proper to be made only when a viable project is identified which can benefit from investment.

Mr. Haselhurst: Does not the fact that the Government have been willing to sanction electrification of a number of rail lines, including in particular the Cambridge and Norwich lines, presage an altogether happy future for the modernisation and electrification of British Rail?

Mr. Ridley: Whenever a good case is put to us for investment by British Rail, as on the Cambridge line, to which my hon. Friend rightly refers, we deal with it as quickly as possible. I think he will agree that, in that case the decision was right and was speedily arrived at.

Mrs. Beckett: Does the Secretary of State not recognise that it is widely believed, not only in British Rail but by people interested in transport, that he has brought pressure to bear on BR to withdraw some of the projects that it had put forward previously, projects that it had defended over the years? Does he not accept that most people believe that his complicity with British Rail, to which he referred so complacently earlier, is leading to the rundown of our rail system?

Mr. Ridley: If it is widely believed, it had better be quickly widely disbelieved, because it is not true.

Mr. Soames: Will my right hon. Friend accept from me that many of my constituents are delighted with and congratulate British Rail on the very substantial investment that it has made on the Victoria to Gatwick line? Many hon. Members are very grateful for the services provided by British Rail and much enjoy travelling on them.

Mr. Ridley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He brings up another example of a major investment speedily agreed to, to the benefit of travellers to Gatwick. My two hon. Friends seem to me to speak the truth about this matter. Opposition Members are simply lamenting that what they thought was a good case has ceased to be one. I am very sorry for them, but I cannot help them.

Mr. Ron Lewis: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House the complete list of electrification schemes submitted by British Rail and say what pressure he has brought to bear on British Rail to withdraw those schemes that he has mentioned?

Mr. Ridley: I have the complete list before me, but it would take a long time to read out all the investment approvals that we have had, particularly for electrification. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) has had the list. If the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Lewis) wishes me to send him the full list, I shall make sure that he gets it.

M25 (Bridges 12 and 13)

Mr. David Marshall: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what assessments have been made of the structural defects on bridges 12 and 13 on the M25 motorway; which other bridges are affected; and if he will make a statement.

Mrs. Chalker: My Department's consulting engineers and contractors are making a thorough survey of the substructure of these bridges, which are under construction. Remedial measures are in hand and will be completed during the construction period. No other structures have been affected, although they are being monitored.

Mr. Marshall: Who will be responsible for footing the Bill for repairing those bridges? Does it not show a curious lack of judgment that the bridges should have been built on land where ground movements might have been expected anyway?

Mrs. Chalker: The original site investigations revealed the conditions to be very difficult indeed, but ground movements have exceeded what was planned for and anticipated. It is far too early in the investigations to say whether the problem could have been foreseen, but as soon as I have information to that effect I shall let the hon. Gentleman know.

Rail Electrification

Mr. Flannery: asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he has received any proposals from British Rail concerning the further electrification of the St. Pancras to Sheffield line beyond Bedford.

Mr. David Mitchell: I have not received detailed proposals for the electrification of this route.

Mr. Flannery: Is the Minister aware that last October a very important national conference was held in Sheffield town hall between, in particular, representatives of the rail and steel industries in an attempt to help the failing steel industry and to secure electrification of that central line? The Secretary of State has told us that investment in the railways cannot proceed because there is not enough money, but will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that last year £12 billion fled the country and found its way into the coffers of our competitors? Just a little bit of that £1 billion a month could have been put into British Rail and could put workers in the steel and rail industries back to work.

Mr. Mitchell: There is no proposal before us from British Rail to electrify that route. It is up to British Rail to propose, and for us to dispose. If BR does not see a case that it thinks worth while, it is not for us to impose it upon BR.

Mr. Flannery: But the Government do impose, and the hon. Gentleman knows it.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Boyes: In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), the Minister mentioned the electrification of the east coast line——

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are well past that question now.

Mr. Boyes: My question is on electrification, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Come on then.

Mr. Boyes: When is electrification of the east coast line is likely to begin?

Mr. Mitchell: As hon. Members will know, the matter of electrifying the east coast main line has been held up, awaiting British Rail's strategy on its inter-city services. We expect to receive that very shortly and we then hope to be in a position to take further decisions.

Local Government Reform (Transport Services)

Mr. Waller: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what effects on the level of public transport services he expects to result directly from the abolition of the metropolitan county councils.

Mr. Ridley: Public transport services will continue to be provided by the PTEs under the control of joint boards, as they were before the metropolitan counties were set up.

Mr. Waller: As my right hon. Friend will know, people are naturally concerned about various aspects of the abolition of the metropolitan councils. Is it not grossly misleading, however, and does it not lower the argument generally, for the metropolitan county councils to give the public the impression—as they are doing—that the level of transport services will automatically fall as a result of their disappearance?

Mr. Ridley: I quite agree. In 1983–84 the metropolitan counties determined the revenue support to public transport at £260 million, compared with the total of the protected expenditure level of £220 million. That is not a very big gap, but we must remember the ratepayers' interests.

Mr. Meadowcraft: Will the Secretary of State accept that the experience of joint boards in local government is

not to be commended? How does he expect hon. Members to evaluate the comments that are made about his proposals—many of which are apparently critical—if they are not placed in the Library for us to see?

Mr. Ridley: We have not yet made firm proposals on this issue. They will come forward in the Bill to abolish the metropolitan counties, and that will be the time for the House to comment on them.

Mr. Leadbitter: Is the Secretary of State aware that I recently wrote to him pointing out 10 serious objections that had been raised by public bodies because the proposal to abolish the metropolitan counties will adversely affect transport? With great respect, although I shall await the right hon. Gentleman's answer, will he tell us to what extent he will take note of the authoratative and considered opinions of those who have made representations to him?

Mr. Ridley: With great respect, I must await the hon. Gentleman's letter, which I have not yet received.

Mr. Snape: The integrated transport service, which is now administered by the six metropolitan counties, is to be fragmented between the 36 metropolitan district councils, the six joint boards and the Department's regional offices under the Government's proposals. Is the right hon. Gentleman really saying that such fragmentation will lead to a more efficient and cost-effective provision of service than that which is presently provided by the metropolitan counties?

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman knows that it is proposed in the White Paper that the PTAs should be taken over by joint boards. That means that they wilt be the authorities that will determine the future of public transport in the metropolitan counties. There is no need to add the districts, the boroughs or my regional offices. The proposal is exactly as I have said.

London Regional Transport Bill

Dr. Twinn: asked the Secretary of State for Transport how much his Department is spending on publicity to advertise the consequences of the new London Regional Transport Bill.

Mr. Ridley: Nothing in contrast with the GLC, which has now voted itself £3 million for its political campaigning. It is for consideration whether it is tolerable for ratepayers' money to be spent on grossly misleading literature and advertising.

Dr. Twinn: I welcome my right hon. Friend's answer. As the Government are not able, and should not he able, to spend money on disgraceful advertising campaigns of the sort that have been embarked upon from across the river, will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to deny the rumours that are often repeated from across the water that the Government have a hit list of bus and tube services in London and that the old-age pensioners' bus passes are still in danger?

Mr. Ridley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. I have repeated the assurance—so many times that I forget the number of times that I have done so— that neither the hit list nor damage to the old person's bus pass is part of our plans. It is difficult for Londoners to realise that instead of having local authorities which issue factual material in a rather dry way, which has been their


experience in the past, they have a local authority which is actively campaigning and issuing propaganda on the basis of extremely dubious material. They are being subjected to a dubious type of hard sell, and not an accurate description of the facts.

Mr. Anderson: Should not the ratepayers of the GLC be allowed to decide for themselves, through the ballot box, whether the expenditure is worth while? As the Minister has said that he will not use advertisements to state that some of the GLC's propaganda is wrong, is he prepared to give a solemn and binding undertaking to the House that the underground stations that have been mentioned will not be closed?

Mr. Ridley: I have given the undertaking for which the hon. Gentleman asks on so many occasions that it is astonishing that he has not heard it. I can only assume that he has not attended the House for months on end. In response to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, I ask him to consider when the ratepayers were ever consulted by the GLC on the cost of London Transport or on any of its other extravagant policies, including the £3 million cost of its political campaigning. When have these policies been put to the ratepayers to ascertain whether they want them?

Mr. Tracey: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that £30,000 of ratepayers' money went from the GLC to an organisation called Capital, which has spread scurrilous propaganda about the Government's proposals? Will he confirm also that London Transport is unnecessarily costing over £2 million a month because of the actions of the GLC's transport committee?

Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend is exactly right. Large sums have been spent on a political campaigning organisation. The Government would not be empowered to do that without specific legislative provisions. I must tell my hon. Friend, with regret, that his estimate of the cost of the GLC's stewardship of London Transport is, I believe, very much on the low side.

Mr. Norman Atkinson: The Secretary of State implies that there has been a lack of morality. How does he justify the statement that he made earlier following his authorisation of the discussions that are taking place about the privatisation of the line between Victoria and Gatwick? He was doing so——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question is directed specifically to publicity on the London Regional Transport Bill.

Mr. Atkinson: My supplementary question is directed to that, Mr. Speaker. I am concerned about Greater London transport because a part of the discussions that are taking place, which have been authorised by the Secretary of State, concern the privatisation of the line from Victoria to Gatwick. The discussions are taking place on the authorisation of the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is ingenious enough. Hon. Members must relate their supplementaries to the questions that appear on the Order Paper. It is unfair to return to an earlier question. I had to stop the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) doing so earlier this afternoon, and I must stop the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Atkinson: So is Mr. Speaker being unfair.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I call the Secretary of State.

Mr. Atkinson: I wish to prove my ingenuity.

Mr. Speaker: I must ask the hon. Gentleman not to persist.

London (Bus and Underground Services)

Mr. Snape: asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has met the chairman of London Transport to discuss future manpower levels on London's bus and underground services.

Mr. Ridley: I have noted with interest the chairman's views, expressed in his 1983 plan and other public statements, that considerable manpower savings are possible on London Transport without detriment to the quality of service offered to Londoners.

Mr. Snape: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that splendid organisation Capital to which the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) referred, has projected more than 13,000 job losses for bus and Underground staff? Is he further aware that the transport correspondent of the Financial Times reported on 21 March that the Department wants between 12,000 and 14,000 job losses during the next few years? Has there been some collusion between those two unlikely sources? What is the right hon. Gentleman's estimate of job losses when the London Regional Transport Bill becomes law?

Mr. Ridley: I can confirm neither figure, nor would it be for me to do so. I shall leave the efficiency of London's transport to the future chairman of LRT when he takes office. However, I must point out that since 1971 there has been a decline of 25 per cent. in the number of passengers using London Transport, but a decline of only 5 per cent. in the number of staff serving them.

Mr. Bottomley: Does my right hon. Friend accept that London travellers and ratepayers want an improvement in the efficiency and productivity of London Transport? Will he discuss with the chairman exactly what contribution Les Huckfield and Arthur Latham are making to the efficiency of——

Mr. Norman Atkinson: Now tell him, Mr. Speaker——

Mr. Bottomley: —either London Transport or the board?

Mr. Ridley: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. We can secure——

Mr. Flannery: That supplementary was nothing to do with the question.

Mr. Ridley: We can secure that increase in efficiency when London Regional Transport comes under my Department. The money spent on Capital could have been better employed in helping the disabled or some other group that really needs help. It is extraordinary how their interests have been ignored and money thrown at other causes instead.

Mr. Spearing: Does the Secretary of State agree that while, theoretically, the single manning of buses in central London can be shown to be marginally more economic, in efficiency and availability there are severe disadvantages to such a system?

Mr. Ridley: No, Sir. The economic advantages are obvious and can be costed in millions. London Transport's studies show that the assault rate on bus staff per bus-mile on buses with conductors was 4·3 times higher than on buses operated by one person.

Mr. Parris: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that if manpower can be saved on London Transport, a better service can be provided for lower fares?

Mr. Ridley: Of course, my hon. Friend is right. It also means that we can take some of the burden off the ratepayers, as I hope to demonstrate later today. I hope that my hon. Friend will stay to listen to me.

Mr. Stephen Ross: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, as a ratepayer in London, I am about to lose my rights to direct representation to the GLC or the LRT authority, which will now be run by the Secretary of State's Department? I plead with him to give more thought to the answer that he gave to the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that to travel on a one-man-operated bus in London in peak hours is an absolute disaster, and that any saving is not worth making? Do not the statistics which the right hon. Gentleman has given relate to after midnight?

Mr. Ridley: In a way, it is a pity that the hon. Gentleman will benefit in two directions. As a ratepayer in London he will have a reduction in the rates that he has to pay and, secondly, he can come to the House and raise his grievances direct with me across the Floor. I cannot think of anything better for him.

M65–M6 (Link)

Mr. Pike: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made in reaching decisions on the M65 motorway link to the M6 and other motorway improvements in the north-west.

Mrs. Chalker: We have made substantial progress in analysing the additional information on traffic, economies, and costs which we required in order to make a sound decision on Lancashire county council's case for the green route to the M6.

Mr. Pike: Is the Minister aware that all councils, political parties and industries in north-east Lancashire are anxiously expecting this long-awaited decision? They recognise that communications are essential if north-east Lancashire is to survive and experience an economic recovery, and look forward to an early and favourable decision.

Mrs. Chalker: I understand the impatience over a decision. Examination of the county council's report has, however, been a time-consuming and complex matter. I have received many representations both for and against the green route. I shall consider them all carefully before coming to a decision, which I hope to make fairly shortly.

Mr. Thurnham: Is my hon. Friend aware of the benefits that would come to industry in Bolton with the improvement of the motorway connection, especially to the container port at Seaforth?

Mrs. Chalker: I am aware of that aspect. That is one matter that I shall take into account when making my decision.

Mr. Straw: Is the Minister aware that the residents of Brownhill, Pleckgate Revidge and the Green Bank areas in Blackburn have suffered increasing anxiety during the past four years since the original decision to cancel the link between the M65 at Blackburn and the M6 near Preston? What does the Minister mean by saying that "fairly shortly" she will make a decision? Will that decision be taken before or after May?

Mrs. Chalker: The hon. Gentleman is asking me to look into a crystal ball which has not yet been completely formed. I understand the anxieties of the people of Brownhill. As I have said to the hon. Gentleman during meetings, some improvement at Brownhill will be needed, regardless of the decision on the green route. I shall come to a decision as soon as I can. I should not like to estimate whether it will be in six weeks or longer, because of the complexity of the information that is currently with the officers in my Department.

Mr. Dover: Will my hon. Friend confirm that a strong body of opinion believes that there should not he a dual carriageway link to the M6 south of Preston, but that it would be better to upgrade the routes to the centre of Preston, as my hon. Friend and her predecessor have said on earlier occasions.

Mrs. Chalker: Representations have been made both for and against a dual carriageway route to the M6. Considerable anxieties have been expressed about the link between the M6 and the M61 and the bypass to the south of Preston. All those matters must be taken into account before I can decide whether to go forward with the green route.

Mr. Jim Callaghan: With regard to the improvement of motorways in the north-west of England, what date does the Minister have in mind for the start of work on the last remaining link of the M66 between Middleton and Denton?

Mrs. Chalker: There is quite a long way to go before we can take a decision on that matter, but I shall write to the hon. Gentleman with the latest available information.

Mr. Robert Atkins: Does my hon. Friend recognise that those of my constituents who are likely to be affected by this route share the view of hon. Members on both sides of the House that the green route is the obvious answer? My constituents will not thank her or anyone else in the Department if they choose the alternative, which would damage an already overcrowded road and property, including the 13th century Samlesbury hall.

Mrs. Chalker: We must take account of all matters, such as ancient buildings and famous places, as well as the need to get traffic to ports as quickly and easily as possible. Many other considerations are involved in coming to this quite difficult decision. I believe that all hon. Members representing the area have now either met or had extensive correspondence with me on this matter. I ask them to be patient for a few more weeks until we have completed our investigations.

Coal Freight (Wagons)

Mr. Anderson: asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has discussed with the chairman of the British Railways Board the effect of Government investment on the availability of wagons for coal freight movements.

Mr. Ridley: No, Sir, but BR could count on my support for worthwhile investment if it considered it necessary. The hon. Member will recall that last year my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales made section 8 grants of more than £400,000 for four projects in south Wales for the carriage of coal by rail.

Mr. Anderson: Leaving aside the temporary difficulties caused by the strike, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, for financial reasons, British Rail is unable to carry all the freight, particularly coal, that is currently available, as it does not have enough conventional wagons to meet the demand? Is he also aware that in south Wales the National Coal Board has criticised the rapid rundown by British Rail of its wagon fleet, which will make inevitable a greater switch from rail to road, with all the consequent environmental problems for residents?

Mr. Ridley: That is not correct. There is no shortage of rail wagons, conventional or otherwise, capable of carrying coal. If there were, British Rail would certainly be allowed to make good the shortage.
I know that there are problems about handling coal trains, particularly at power stations and steel works in south Wales. British Rail is in contact with the other corporations involved and they are trying to solve the problems. I know that there is also a problem at the coal washery at Aberpergwm, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman the good news that when that problem is solved there will be rail traffic taking the briquettes from Blaenant to the power station, so there will be no shortage of opportunities for the railways.

Mr. Nicholls: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there are many reasons, not least the damage that would otherwise be caused to the roads, for greater emphasis to be placed on getting heavy transport, including the transport of coal, on to rail and off the roads?

Mr. Ridley: As I said in the objectives for the chairman of British Rail, we should welcome anything that British Rail could do to get more freight going by rail. Section 8 grants are available to help the private sector to accommodate more rail traffic. Since 1979 we have spent £29 million on these grants. We are doing all that we can, and so is British Rail.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that I wrote to him on this matter a short time ago after receiving representations from my local branch of the NUR? Does he agree that there is a need to keep traffic on the railways, not only because of congestion on the roads, but because of the present lack of maintenance of the roads?

Mr. Ridley: There is no problem here. British Rail is not short of the necessary wagons. The business has to be arranged between British Rail and its customers, and I know of no problem. I do not know what the worry is all about. I hope that if there is a worry, hon. Members will write to the chairman of British Rail and let him know what it is.

British Rail Engineering Ltd.

Mr. Ron Lewis: asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to receive British Rail's report on the future of British Rail Engineering Ltd.; and if he will publish it.

Mr. David Mitchell: We have asked British Rail to complete its review of BREL by the middle of the year.

Mr. Lewis: Will the hon. Gentleman give an absolute assurance that the Government will exercise no political pressure in favour of private companies when they are tendering with BREL for contracts on the railways?

Mr. Mitchell: I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. When BREL is in competition with the private sector for tendering, the procedures are absolutely fair and straightforward.

British Rail (Inter-city Strategy)

Mr. Kirkwood: asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has yet received British Rail's intercity strategy report.

Mr. David Mitchell: No, Sir.

Mr. Kirkwood: Does the Minister accept the need for an urgent review of the decision on the electrification of the east coast route, which will flow from the inter-city strategy report by British Rail? Will he assure the House that as soon as he receives the strategy report he will eschew the predilection for written answers and will come to the House and give us not only the Government's initial reactions to the report, but a timetable according to which decisions will be taken?

Mr. Mitchell: I shall have to consider that in the light of the contents of the strategy report. I should point out that there has not yet been a Question Time during which the matter has not been raised.

Dr. Mawhinney: Over the past few months I have regularly asked my hon. Friend to convey to the chairman of British Rail the desire of the House that the report should be brought forward as quickly as possible. Has my hon. Friend yet had a chance to convey that message to the chairman?

Mr. Mitchell: Yes, Sir.

Cars (Rear Seat Belts)

Mr. Roger King: asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he is prepared to consider the compulsory fitment of rear seat belts in passenger cars.

Mrs. Chalker: We are considering this matter, but we are not yet ready to make a decision.

Mr. King: Is my hon. Friend aware that about 5,000 new cars come on to our roads every day? Does she agree that the fitting of rear seat safety belts is a proven safety device which should be encouraged voluntarily, not compulsorily?

Mrs. Chalker: I am aware of what my hon. Friend says. We estimate that at the moment between 5 and 10 per cent. of new cars already have rear seat belts fitted. I assured the Select Committee last month that I would consider its report before making a final decision. I believe that the report will be forthcoming fairly shortly, and I hope soon to be in a position to make such a decision.

Oral Answers to Questions — ATTORNEY-GENERAL

Building Industry (Litigation)

Mr. Chapman: asked the Attorney-General if he is satisfied with the status and number of official referees dealing with litigation in the building industry.

The Attorney-General (Sir Michael Havers): I refer my hon. Friend to my speech on this subject in the debate on the Adjournment on Friday 30 March 1984 — to which my hon. Friend made such a substantial contribution—at columns 626–28.

Mr. Chapman: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the building industry welcomed the announcement in that Adjournment debate of the increase in the number of official referees from four to six? Will he use his good offices to try to improve the facilities for those courts, which do an important and valuable job?

The Attorney-General: We are very much aware of the need for improved accommodation. The matter is being given urgent consideration.

Official Secrets Act (Prosecutions)

Mr. Winnick: asked the Attorney-General if he will list the criteria used for deciding whether to prosecute under section 2 of the Official Secrets Act.

The Attorney-General: I take my decisions on the basis, first, of an objective assessment of whether sufficient evidence is available to prove the offence. On this and on other aspects of the case I, of course, have the advantage of the advice of the Director of Public Prosecutions. Having satisfied myself on that, I then consider whether, in the particular case, the public interest requires a prosecution. I have no hard and fast rules. Each case is judged on its own particular facts and with special regard to the circumstances both of the alleged offence and of the alleged offender. This is simply an application of my general guidelines on the criteria for prosecution which I issued in March last year and a copy of which is in the Library. Official Secrets Act cases receive no different treatment.

Mr. Winnick: Is the Attorney-General aware that there will be much disappointment about the refusal of the judges to permit Sarah Tisdall permission to appeal against an unjust and unnecessary sentence? How does the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain his attitude to section 2 of the Official Secrets act when he was in opposition and the manner in which a clearly politically motivated prosecution was brought in this case? Was Sarah Tisdall's real offence that she objected to Parliament being deceived over the delivery of cruise missiles to this country?

The Attorney-General: I suspected that the hon. Gentleman would say that the prosecution was "politically motivated". Whether Franks, the 1889 Act or the 1911 Act had been in operation, it would have been an offence just the same. What Miss Tisdall did was a grave breach of trust. She lied a number of times about what she had done and sought to blame her colleagues for her own crimes. I decided that the case should be tried at the Central Criminal Court, and today the Court of Appeal has upheld the decision of the trial judge.

Mr. Stanbrook: Although the recent prosecution and sentence in the Tisdall case were fully justified in all the

circumstances, is it not a fact that not all confidential information in the Government's possession needs the protection of the criminal law? Will my right hon. and learned Friend therefore consider whether we have got it right in the present law?

The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend will recall that in 1979 we tried to legislate in respect of the Franks report. It went through some stages in the other House, but there was a concerted attack on it by Fleet street and many other organisations and it was withdrawn. Recently my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said that the Government have no intention of introducing further legislation on the subject.

Mr. John Morris: During the weekend the Attorney-General stressed the need for reasonable consensus in law reform. Does he recognise that there is a growing consensus for reform of the catch-all effects of section 2 of the Official Secrets Act, which the Franks committee described as a mess? Should not the Government seize this nettle and accept that, in a democratic society, there should be provision to protect only such of the Government's information that can be proved to require protection? Does he further agree that the Government should not continue to demand coverage of such a wide umbrella, which has been described as a blot on the statute book and results, unhappily, in many people questioning the need for protection at all?

The Attorney-General: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman will take the time and trouble to examine the cases that have been brought under section 2 since I have been Attorney-General, he will find that each was absolutely justified. The catch-all provisions are dangerous only when employed by a Government to prosecute the type of case that he described when such prosecutions are unnecessary. I am pround of my record during the five years that I have been Attorney-General. I have used section 2 sparingly and only when absolutely necessary.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: Although I do not dispute the need to re-examine section 2 of the Official Secrets Act, will my right hon. and learned Friend, in view of the comments of the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), take the opportunity this afternoon to reiterate that individual sentences must be matters for individual members of the judiciary and the courts? It would be disastrous if the House attempted to impose its views on matters such as whether the sentence is too harsh or too lenient.

The Attorney-General: My right hon. and learned Friend, whom I welcome back, is right. He will have noticed that I did not refer to sentences when the original question was put to me. It is an important part of our constitution that the Executive and the judiciary are kept entirely separate. It would be quite wrong for any Government to comment on sentencing, as that could damage the independence of the judiciary, on which we pride ourselves.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: If there is to be no reform of the Official Secrets Act—it is a difficult matter—will the Attorney-General examine the report of the Franks committee, on which I served 12 years ago, which devoted much time to classification, which is a subjective rather than an objective matter? Even if there is to be no reform


of the legislation, surely the Government could consider classification, which I am sure plays a part in the nature of the sentence if the classification is too high.

The Attorney-General: I entirely understand the right hon. Gentleman's point. I refreshed my memory on the Franks report this morning. According to proposal No. 6, it is quite clear that, even if we had implemented Franks by statute, the offence by the girl in question would still have been an offence. However, that is not a matter for me, as the right hon. Gentleman, as a former Home Secretary, knows. I shall ensure that his comments are drawn to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.

Mr. Dubs: asked the Attorney-General how many people have been proceeded against under section 2 of the Official Secrets Act since 1979.

The Attorney-General: Approaching such cases on the basis that I outlined in my answer to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), there have been 14 prosecutions under section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911 since 1979.

Mr. Dubs: Is it not a fact that the case of Sarah Tisdall differs from the others which the Attorney-General has mentioned in that no damage whatever was done to British security, even if it caused major embarrassment to the British Government? Is it not wrong in principle that section 2 should be used in that way and that we have an offence which in the United States and other countries is not an offence but is part of the rights of citizens in a democratic society to know the facts about their Government?

The Attorney-General: As I read the Franks report and understand the law in other countries, I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. The classification of documents —a matter raised by the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees)—depends on the position when the classification was imposed. The position at the time of trial, as the Franks report pointed out, is irrelevant. When the Ministry of Defence classified the documents as secret, it was obvious for security reasons that plans for the movement of nuclear weapons should be kept secret. Their disclosure on the occasion in question could have heightened the risk of attempts by people opposed to the deployment of cruise missiles to interrupt the deliveries, thus increasing the risk of possible violent confrontation between security forces and demonstrators. It was also potentially a major source of embarrassment to us in our relations with those allies who were consulted about the timetable.
In retrospect — I am referring to the damage assessment given to the court at the Old Bailey when Sarah Tisdall stood trial—because of some quick alterations in planning and timing by the Ministry of Defence, those expected damages, for which the classification was applied, did not occur.

Mr. Jerry Hayes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I shall take points of order after Question Time.

Oral Answers to Questions — OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

United Nations Children's Fund

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much it would cost to increase the United Kingdom's per capita contribution to the United Nations children's fund to the average per capita level of the Nordic countries.

The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Timothy Raison): The average per capita contribution level for all purposes of Denmark, Norway and Sweden in 1983—using 1982 population figures—was US $4. Such a level for the United Kingdom would require a contribution of about US $223 million or some £156 million.

Mr. Dalyell: Compared with $5·03 per head does the Minister think that $1·6 per head from the United Kingdom is a satisfactory contribution for the United Nations children's fund?

Mr. Raison: I understand and share the belief of many hon. Members in the value and importance of the work that UNICEF does, but we have many pressures on our aid programme and must decide how best to use our resources. The £6 million that we give to UNICEF is not a paltry sum.

Mr. Rhodes James: Although it is not a paltry sum, and we are grateful for what the Government and taxpayers provide for UNICEF, is that not one of the great success stories of the United Nations family and should not the Government be even more involved in that success story?

Mr. Raison: I agree that it is a great success story of the United Nations family, and many hon. Members share that view. Each year I shall consider what contribution we can make, but we have many pressures on our resources.

Mr. Stuart Holland: The Minister is keen to give the House figures on aid in current rather than real terms. What is the difference between the British and Norwegian contributions to UNICEF in relation to the real cuts in the aid budget? The right hon. Gentleman likes to give the House the impression that he is doing the best he can for development, but does he realise that if that is all the contribution that he can make to UNICEF, he may as well be the prince of darkness for all it benefits Third-world children?

Mr. Raison: Our contribution of £6 million makes a significant difference. I have not sought to disguise the fact that the per capita contribution of Nordic countries is both substantial and greater than ours. Nevertheless, we are doing a good job.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: Will my right hon. Friend consider a transfer of funds from the British contribution to UNESCO to this desirable cause? Does he agree that when we judge our contribution we should recall the generosity of British citizens to the Save the Children Fund?

Mr. Raison: I am aware of the generosity of British citizens to the Save the Children Fund. We are examining carefully our position in relation to UNESCO, but I cannot guarantee that we shall give more to UNICEF in the near future.

Voluntary Sector (Assistance)

Mr. William Powell: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what help is being provided to the voluntary sector for overseas activities.

Mr. Raison: In the current financial year I have allocated, subject to parliamentary approval, £6 million for the British volunteer programme and £2·59 million for overseas development projects jointly funded with British agencies. During the past four years we have doubled our total help to the voluntary agencies, whose work overseas I greatly value.

Mr. Powell: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the excellent improvement in our contribution. What plans does he have for the future funding of voluntary agencies?

Mr. Raison: The figures that I have given relate to the current financial year, which has only just begun. We review those funds every year, and I shall consider carefully our contribution to the joint funding scheme.

Mr. Meadowcroft: Will the Minister be sympathetic to providing more resources to the voluntary bodies that enable young people to serve overseas, given that many idealistic youngsters, who have skills and talents that will be valuable to the Third world, cannot find jobs in Britian?

Mr. Raison: I am very much in favour of the British volunteer programme. Since we came to power in 1979 we have increased our funding of the voluntary programme by between three and four times, so we have a good record in this area.

Mr. Bowen Wells: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the most effective of the many voluntary agencies is Action Aid, which today gave a glass of cold, clean water to the Prime Minister as a symbol of its programme to help people to help themselves? Does he agree that that programme is the best way to help the poorest of the poor?

Mr. Raison: I am sympathetic to Action Aid and its work, and would always be prepared to consider proposals put to me on its behalf.

Mr. Deakins: Is not this form of aid the most effective way of getting most aid to the poorest people in the poorest countries? Is it not all the more valuable at a time when the Government are moving from that good objective towards commercial and strategic considerations, which do not enter into the calculations of voluntary agencies?

Mr. Raison: We still pay great regard to the needs of the poorest countries. The voluntary agencies are effective in that respect, and that is one reason why I consider them sympathetically.

Africa (Drought Victims)

Mr. Baldry: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent help has been made available to victims of drought in Africa.

Mr. Raison: Since I last reported to the House on 5 December we have committed about £3·6 million of disaster relief and bilateral food aid for drought relief in Africa, together with £2·57 million as our share of the European Community's programme. This brings our total commitment in 1983–84 to £21·82 million. In addition, we have recently undertaken to provide 10,000 tonnes of food aid to Zimbabwe.

Mr. Baldry: What specific aid is the United Kingdom giving to Ethiopia?

Mr. Raison: My hon. Friend knows that we have done a great deal for Ethiopia. Last year we provided 19,000 tonnes of food aid and contributed to the £7·5 million worth of food aid provided by the European Community's food aid programme and to the £750,000 worth of Community emergency food aid for Tigre and Eritrea. We have also helped in other ways.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: I welcome what the Government have done about famine relief in Africa. However, has my right hon. Friend heard the distressing reports of what is happening in Lesotho, and will he undertake to be sympathetic to any request for aid from that country?

Mr. Raison: I shall consider carefully any request for aid. I visited Lesotho last year, and anyone who goes there must develop some sympathy for it.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Can the Minister estimate for how long the drought is likely to continue? Does he agree that, even if it rained within the next month or so, there would still be a food shortage in the area for some time?

Mr. Raison: Only the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell), who was the responsible Minister in the Labour Government, would venture a prediction in that respect. However, this is a serious matter, which my Department is following closely.

India and Sri Lanka

Mr. Chapman: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will report progress on the Rihand super-thermal power station in India, and the Victoria darn in Sri Lanka.

Mr. Raison: After some initial delays, progress on the Rihand power station is improving and the work is moving closer to completion in 1988.
Progress on the Victoria project in Sri Lanka remains close to the original programme. The reservoir has just started filling and the power supply is due to start flowing in July.

Mr. Chapman: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that information. Will he confirm that the Victoria dam project, as well as providing electricity to Sri Lanka, will help to irrigate 112,000 acres? Does he agree that such British overseas aid, drawing upon British building, construction and engineering skills, is the sort of aid that we should commend and encourage?

Mr. Raison: I fully agree with my hon. Friend. The project is excellent and is being carried out in an excellent way by the British contractors.

Mr. Spearing: While both these schemes are no doubt excellent in their own way, what is their cost in relation to the possible $6 million extra that might go to UNICEF?

Mr. Raison: Both these projects are valued at more than £100 million and are, therefore, very substantial. They yield considerable benefits to British employment as well as to the social and economic conditions in the countries concerned. The hon. Gentlemen will have to make up his own mind about the relative value of our contribution in this regard compared with that to UNICEF.

Sir Peter Blaker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Victoria dam, which I had the good fortune to visit a


few weeks ago, is an extremely impressive engineering achievement which reflcts great credit on British engineering skills and will bring enormous benefit to many thousands of people in Sri Lanka?

Mr. Raison: It is widely accepted that the Victoria dam is an impressive engineering feat, and the House will be interested to know that it was formally Commissioned by the President of Sri Lanka yesterday.

Mr. Hayes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance on questions to the Attorney-General. As you know, the Court of Appeal made an important decision about the sentence on Miss Sarah Tisdall. You will notice that a large number of right hon. and hon. Members——

Mr. Speaker: Order. It seems that the hon. Gentleman is seeking to do something which I hope the House will not do—to extend Question Time by seeking to raise a supplementary question as a point of order.

Mr. Hayes: I was not, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I think that the hon. Member was.

Mr. Hayes: I was going to ask whether there could be an extension of Question Time.

Mr. Stokes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for Opposition Members to make direct criticism of Her Majesty's judges — [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] — when they should, in fact, table a substantive motion? Furthermore, in spite of all their criticism, should they not be thankful that they live in England, not in Soviet Russia?

Mr. Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I can take only one point of order at a time.
I must tell the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes) that it is not in order to criticise Her Majesty's judges, but that it is in order to criticise a sentence.

Mr. Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes) said that we should be grateful that we live here and not in Soviet Russia, is not one of the virtues of having a free Parliament that we can express our point of view? I make no apologies for what I said earlier—none at all.

Mr. Speaker: That is a point of order arising from someone else's point of order, but we must all agree with the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) on how fortunate we are.

Fowl Pest

Mr. David Steel: (by private notice) asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the number of outbreaks of fowl pest throughout the United Kingdom, the number of chickens slaughtered and the source of infection, and what steps his Department is taking to prevent the sale of contaminated feedstuffs.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Michael Jopling): Eleven outbreaks of Newcastle disease have recently been confirmed in Great Britain. About 420,000 birds have been slaughtered. All the cases where investigations have been completed, with one exception, provide evidence suggesting that the disease was caused by feed contaminated by feral pigeons. Suspicions centred on two storage areas in the port of Liverpool — Huskisson and Alexandra — which have subsequently been strengthened by the isolation of virus from raw material stored there. The feed trade associations have given, and carried out, an undertaking to emphasise to their members the importance of ensuring as far as they can that none of the contaminated materials is used in the preparation of poultry feed. I understand that no materials are leaving the contaminated premises in question without a warning that they should not be used in poultry feed.
We are preparing an urgent amendment to the fowl pest order which will further strengthen these arrangements by giving me the power to declare the storage areas in question an infected place. Further movements of feedingstuffs material from these stores would then be subject to licensing. Finally, we have been in touch with the metropolitan county authority which is considering whether to institute proceedings under feedingstuffs provisions of the Agriculture Act 1970.

Mr. Steel: I am grateful to the Minister for his statement. Will he confirm that the British Poultry Federation considers that the outbreak has already cost the industry millions of pounds, and that in the summer jobs are likely to be lost in the food processing factories because of the lack of chicks and eggs?
Will the Minister explain why the Ministry has not taken powers to stop the distribution of feedstuffs since issuing its press notice on 23 March? Is he aware that there is strong criticism of the fact that feedstuffs have been allowed on to farms not connected with poultry, from which the disease will inevitably spread, as there are very few farms which do not have some poultry on them?
Who will pay for the havoc that has been caused?

Mr. Jopling: When there is an outbreak of this magnitude, naturally one greatly regrets the difficulties that will be caused throughout the poultry industry. We hope that there will be very few, if any, further outbreaks of the disease.
We have been engaged in intensive discussions with all the interests concerned. We sought their immediate assurance that they would seek the co-operation of their members in ensuring that infected material was not used for poultry feed. Since the first discussions, positive evidence that infection exists in feedingstuffs has come to light. We shall need to cover the possibility that individual traders may not give full support to voluntary

arrangements. In those circumstances, we considered it prudent to obtain more powers in the event of our not having the same co-operation as we have in this case.

Sir Hector Monro: Will my right hon. Friend accept that we are grateful for the extreme seriousness with which he has treated the outbreak and for the steps that he has in hand? I am sure that that is also appreciated by the British Poultry Federation.
Will my right hon. Friend have discussions with the Secretary of State for Scotland and do all that he can to prevent the disease from spreading into that country, which at the moment appears to be free of it?

Mr. Jopling: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his opening remarks. We shall discuss the matter with the Scottish Office, but there have been two outbreaks in, I think, Berwickshire.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: After the House has risen for the Easter recess, if my right hon. Friend judges it necessary to bring in compulsory vaccination, will he have power to do it while the House is in recess?

Mr. Jopling: I hope that it will not be necessary to move to compulsory vaccination, but if it is we shall move with a minimum of delay.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Is the Minister aware that people in the areas surrounding the infected areas are astonished that the Government, having isolated the source of contaminated feedstuffs, did nothing about it? How can he possibly justify that decision?

Mr. Jopling: The hon. Gentleman has perhaps failed to note what happened subsequent to our discussions with the feed trades. I mentioned it in my statement.
I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the statement that was put out immediately by the United Kingdom Agricultural Supply Trade Association Ltd. The final paragraph of the statement, which I shall not read out to the House, says that the association has indicated to the Minister that it will emphasise to members the importance of ensuring, as far as they can, that none of the contaminated materials is used in the preparation of poultry feeds. It is ridiculous to suggest that we have done nothing.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Does the Minister agree that the correct course of action would have been to trace consignments of feed from the contaminated source and to warn individual purchasers of that feed that it might be contaminated?
We welcome the fact that there is no lateral infection of one flock by another, but is there any possibility of there being what I can only describe as lateral contamination in places where feed is held in store before being sent to individual customers?
Is the Ministry giving any help and advice to those whose flocks have had to be slaughtered, so that they may know how to obtain compensation from the suppliers of contaminated feed?

Mr. Jopling: This is a simple matter, on which producers should seek legal advice. I would not presume to give that advice. As to tracing consignments, the material from these stores was one of the rudimentary ingredients which appear in a large proportion of poultry


feeds. We thought it right that the best way to do this was through discussions with UKASTA— to which I have already referred—which issued a press notice, and by keeping in touch with the British Poultry Federation.

Coal Industry Dispute (Police Operations)

Mr. Allen McKay: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
The implications for civil liberties and the rule of law of policing operations connected with the current mining dispute.
In seeking this debate it is not my intention to attack the police force. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Despite what Conservative Members are suggesting, my relationship with the police is extremely good. I am sure that the House will realise their needs and also their difficulties. It is in the interests of all concerned—the police, the pickets, the general public and the House — that the issues involved should be aired before we break for the recess.
As I said before, and as the Leader of the House said on Thursday, after all, when it is all over we have "to live together again". The local police have said the same thing to some of my constituents and to some of the pickets. Over the weekend I have had the opportunity to discuss this problem at my surgery, at a family wedding, where most of the people were miners and their families, and all were extremely concerned, with my colleagues over a dinner—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—this is because of the urgency of the debate — and also with the legal adviser to the Yorkshire area of the National Union of Mineworkers. Not all the comments were bad. There were also comments on the good nature of many members of the police force. However, what was said emphasised the need, and the urgency, for a debate.
I quote one incident to illustrate this. The deaconess of the church to which I belong complained to me about the treatment of her son, who works not in the mining industry but in British Rail. On three occasions recently he has been stopped and on one occasion was taken out of his car. Not only was his car searched, but he was bodily searched.
Therefore, I stress the urgency of the need for a debate. In recent weeks my right hon. and hon. Friends have had numerous complaints from constituents, as I am sure Conservative Members have had. These complaints do not come only from those working in the mining industry. There is great public concern, and for these reasons I seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
The implications for civil liberties and the rule of law of policing operations connected with the current mining dispute.
I am satisfied that the matter that the hon. Gentleman raises is one that is proper to be discussed under Standing Order No. 10.
Does the hon. Gentleman have the leave of the House?

The leave of the House having been given—

Mr. Speaker: Under Standing Order No. 10, the motion for the Adjournment of the House will now stand over until the commencement of public business tomorrow, when a debate on the matter will take place for three hours.

Mr. Robert McCrindle: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I recognise that under Standing Order No. 10 you are under no obligation, either today or on the previous occasions when this matter has been raised, to declare your reasons for deciding one way or another. However, I ask for some clarification about how this Standing Order operates. You will remember that on several occasions in the past two weeks you have refused similar applications, but on the intimation that on this occasion the application had the support of the Opposition Front Bench it seems to have led to a different decision.
In the interests of Back Benchers, which you have rightly sought to protect since you became Speaker, can you make it clear that there is no difference between an hon. Member seeking the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 10 with the support of his Front Bench and another hon. Member making a similar application without that support?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Member is in fact seeking to ask me to give reasons for my decision. He is right in saying that I seek to defend the interests of Back Benchers. I hope he will note that this application under Standing Order No. 10 was by a Back Bencher.

Mr. Tony Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that any point of order can arise on what I have just said.

Mr. David Steel: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you help the House, following your ruling, by saying whether tomorrow's debate, since it will be on the Adjournment of the House, will be a narrow or a wide one? In other words, will it be limited to the important issues raised by the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay), or will it be widened to include more primary issues about the mining dispute itself?

Mr. Speaker: The motion will be on the Standing Order No. 10 application which I have just granted.

Mr. Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You are saying how wide the debate might be. Will it be

possible to deal with the issue that the Labour party has brought this matter forward as a means of undermining the credibility of the police because the Opposition have no policies——

Mr. Speaker: Order. This debate will take place tomorrow and not now, please.

Mr. Peter Shore: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Your decision about tomorrow's business means, of course, that the Second Reading of the Finance Bill, which was scheduled for prime time tomorrow, beginning at 3.30 pm, will, unless certain other changes are made, not begin until after 7 o'clock. I hope very much that it will be possible for the Leader of the House to make a statement about the rearrangement of the business for tomorrow.

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): With the leave of the House, Mr. Speaker. I take note of what the right hon. Gentleman said, but the plan must be that the precedence that will be given to the debate on the Adjournment under Standing Order No. 10 means that the Second Reading of the Finance Bill will start that much later.

Mr. Ray Powell: On a point of order Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not want to take any further points of order on my ruling on the Standing Order No. 10 application. Does the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) wish to raise a different matter?

Mr. Powell: It is an important matter.

Mr. Speaker: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will reserve his comments until tomorrow.

Mr. Powell: I am not commenting about that. I want to comment only on your ruling, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that the House wishes—certainly I do not—to hear any more points of order on my ruling upon the Standing Order No. 10 application, which I have granted.

Orders of the Day — London Regional Transport Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

New Clause

LONDON TRANSPORT MONEY ACT

'The Secretary of State, in making the levy upon the rating authorities of Greater London, may only make such a levy which shall not exceed 55 per cent. of the Secretary of State's estimated expenditure in that year on grants under section 12 of this Act, and such a proposed levy shall be subject to consultation with the Greater London Council, the Common Council and the London Boroughs, and shall be authorised by a London Transport Money Act for that year, a bill for which shall be promoted by London Regional Transport.'.—[Mr. Prescott.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. John Prescott: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 54, in clause 13, page 11, line 26 leave out from 'as' to end of line 9 on page 12 and insert
'appears to the Secretary of State to be appropriate to recover the amount of the levy authorised by the London Transport Money Act for the year to which the demand relates.'.

Mr. Prescott: The purpose of the clause and the amendment is to consider means by which we can embody the proper supplementary rate in a money Bill and not in an order as presently prescribed and, secondly, to consider the ceiling imposed upon the ratepayers' contribution to any supplementary rate embodied in a money Bill.
The Opposition believe that, if implemented, the London Regional Transport Bill will reduce services for Londoners, produce higher fares and, in the last analysis, produce higher rates as a direct result of the Government's policy and desire to reduce the amount of public money put into London Regional Transport.
The Bill secures a reduction in the Government's contribution to the maintenance of the London Transport system. The Secretary of State has made it clear on numerous occasions that he disagrees fundamentally with the artificial level of fares, particularly in the metropolitan transport areas, and especially — one presumes — in London. Therefore, new clause 12 and the amendment seek to address our concern about the ratepayers' share of the cost of London Regional Transport.
The Bill is largely concerned with the Government's contribution to London transport. The Government's contribution in TSG, capital and revenue grants is embodied in clause 12. The new clause deals with the proportion of the ratepayers' contribution, which is to be found in clause 13. The Bill gives the ratepayer no guarantee that the maximum of two thirds in clause 13(6) will be maintained. In fact, clause 13(8) says that the Secretary of State may come to the House with an order to increase the maximum proportion beyond 66 per cent. In reality, the ratepayers' contribution could be anything up to 100 per cent., and even beyond if the Secretary of State so wishes. The protection of two thirds in clause 13

is no guarantee that London ratepayers will be limited to that share of the bill. New clause 12 seeks to change 66 per cent. to 55 per cent.
The travel card scheme had a surplus of £35 million, which this year went back to the ratepayers and helped to reduce the rate burden in London for the maintenance of London transport. However, the Bill makes it clear that any surplus from the operation of LRT similar to that from the travel card scheme may find its way back to the Treasury coffers. The Secretary of State shakes his head. We shall await his reply. He will have to agree that, as the Bill stands, any surplus could go to the Treasury. Presumably the Treasury will decide whether it will.
New clause 12 seeks to change the means by which the rate supplementary grant will be presented to Parliament and to change to a more realistic level the proportion that should be carried by the ratepayers when the Government take over responsibility for the provision of London's transport. The Bill proposes that the share to be carried as a supplementary rate should in the first instance be no greater than two thirds unless a special order is presented by the Secretary of State to the House. In Committee the theme was that two thirds of the charge would be carried by the ratepayers and one third by the taxpayers in the form of a grant given by the Secretary of State to LRT. Whatever that proportion, it will be embodied in an order to be brought before the House.
The new clause states that the proportion of the rate to be levied upon London ratepayers shall be embodied in a London Transport Money Bill. The Bill provides that such a supplementary rate shall be the subject of an order, on which there will be a positive vote in the House. As I understand procedure for dealing with orders, if the Government conclude that the percentage should be 66 per cent. and hon. Members wish to reduce the supplementary levy, they will not be able to change that percentage, though they might well be able to do so if the matter were dealt with under the procedures in force in a local council.
I understand that the procedure for debating orders does not allow for amendments to be tabled. The House will therefore be provided with a maximum of one and a half hours to debate London's supplementary rate for the provision and financing of transport. For many hon. Members, that is not sufficient. I am bound to comment that the Secretary of State said in Committee that he was prepared to consider whether more time could be provided. Under the procedures of the House, if the debate on an order starts before 10 o'oclock, that amount of time can be added to the one and a half hours. If the previous business finishes early, theoretically the House could spend somewhat longer than the one and a half hours embodied in the procedure to deal with an order. Even that is not good enough however, because it still does not allow for amendments to be tabled.
That is not satisfactory if we are to become the ratepayers' representatives for what is essentially a local service, namely, the provision of transport. There are 32 boroughs and the Greater London council, to begin with. Whatever the Government have in mind for legislation that is yet to be presented to the House for the abolition of the GLC, the rates procedure as determined by the local authority structure allows more than an hour and a half to determine the type of transport, what it will cost, and the rate to be levied for it.
If Members of Parliament are now to act as councillors, as indeed the Secretary of State confirmed in reply to a


question by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross), there will be an opportunity for only a minute's intervention at Question Time to ask about London Transport or rates. The extensive ways now open to decide such matters in local democracy will be replaced by one minute's intervention at Question Time, and a one and a half hour debate on the rate to be levied. That is an unacceptable proposition for the provision of a service costing hundreds of millions of pounds, and one that is of great importance to the many people dependent on the future policy pursued by London Regional Transport.
A second difficulty arises because the vote on the rates will not be limited to Members of Parliament representing London constituencies. Any hon. Member from Yorkshire, Scotland or Wales will have a right to decide on the rate that will be imposed upon a limited number of people in the London area for their transport services. That, too, is unacceptable. I therefore hope that the House will accept the argument that to deal with this important matter by a statutory order is unacceptable.
The alternative embodied in the new clause is a London Transport money Bill. Most hon. Members will be aware that a London money Bill passes through the House regularly. It is a private Bill which is brought forward by the GLC, dealing with the capital requirements of the GLC. My first difficulty is over how the Government will be empowered to launch a private Bill. I presume that such a private Bill would not be presented to the House unless it was in order. Having taken advice from the Table Office, I am advised that it would be possible for the Government to present a money Bill embodying the rate to be levied. The way in which the House deals with Bills, as opposed to orders, would allow ample opportunity to discuss the judgment of the Government on the proportion to be levied on the ratepayers. This would allow an opportunity to debate the annual plans of the Government —as opposed to the statements, of which so much was heard in Committee—on the level of fares, the structure of services, the location of routes and all matters crucial to the provision of a modern sophisticated transport system in London.
To that extent, a Bill would involve a Second Reading debate, for which a considerable amount of time would be allowed. More time is likely to be allowed for that than for all the procedures involved in an order. The Bill would then be considered in Committee and it would be possible for just those who represent London constituencies to debate the Bill, carrying out as councillors the role allotted to them by the Government, and considering the Government's view of the quality and costs of the service. When compared with the procedures involved in an order, all hon. Members, and particularly those representing London constituencies, will agree that a Bill offers us a far better way of fulfilling our responsibility to the ratepayers in providing what is, after all, a local service. I therefore hope that hon. Members will agree that that part of the new clause offers a much more satisfactory procedure.
4 pm
In the metropolitan council areas, elected representatives from the boroughs, and certainly from the district councils, will presumably sit on the boards. They will at least be able to argue with the proposed joint councils the exact provision of services and their cost. However, London is yet again unique, because, as the Secretary of State has said, a new nationalised industry is being set up

that will be financed from the rates. No other nationalised industry is, in that sense, comparable. Indeed, given what the Secretary of State said in Committee, there is a distinct possibility that London's ratepayers will have to contribute to the public service obligation for those of the Bill's provisions that deal with rail services.
If the legislation in part II is enacted, Londoners will be unique in that they will have to face the cost of providing the PSO for maintaining the railway lines. That does not happen in other parts of the country, although I readily accept that the metropolitan authorities at present contribute nearly £100 million towards British Rail's PSO. However, they do so by agreement and negotiations between locally elected representatives and British Railways Board. By contrast, in this case, the cost will be determined solely by the LRT and levied by the Secretary of State by means of an order. Thus, London's ratepayers will have to carry, in addition, the burden of contributing to British Rail's PSO, which is normally borne by the taxpayers.
Perhaps the most important aspect of the new clause is the ceiling to be imposed. The boroughs are entitled to be consulted about the proportion of the rate to be levied. In Committee we discussed the fact that even London's ratepayers had the right to challenge judgments made by their elected representatives. Later we shall deal with amendments covering the possibility of interventions by the courts. Clause 13 deals with the ceiling to he placed on the ratepayers' share of the cost of grants given by the Secretary of State, to be found in clause 12. In clause 13(6), the maximum is set at 66 per cent. Clause 13(8) allows the Secretary of State to impose an extra amount, presumably taking it to 100 per cent. However, in theory, the amount could go beyond that, although I shall not pursue that point now. Nevertheless, it remains true that under the Bill the ratepayers could be charged at 100 per cent.
The Minister is shaking her head. If she wants to refute that, I shall sit down. London's ratepayers could be asked to pay up to 100 per cent. of the cost of provision by the LRT. That power is in the Bill. If that were not so, there would be no reason for subsection (8). The Minister has not risen to her feet, so it will clearly be possible to levy the full cost on London's ratepayers. Given that, we want to know exactly what the percentage will be. Even before the Bill was publicly launched there was considerable controversy about what proportion should be the ratepayers' share.
The Secretary of State is, I know, somewhat concerned, because I was given a Bill containing, in clause 13, the figure of 50 per cent. I accept that the right hon. Gentleman may say that the Government thought about that figure and threw it into the clause as a sort of dummy. Well, it is a much cheaper dummy than the 66 per cent. now in the clause. The crucial question is what proportion the ratepayers will have to bear. For the sake of the argument I shall address my remarks to the mark two version of the Bill, which contains the figure of 66 per cent.
On Second Reading the Secretary of State offered us several quotes, although, to be fair, when he spoke of the ratepayers' share being 90 per cent. he was citing Literature which he said had been published by the GLC. From my inquiries, I understand that that was largely to do with the


effects of the penalties resulting from the Government's policy on block grants and the "Fares Fair" system, which became the subject of court proceedings and so on.
On Second Reading we learnt that the Minister thought that the figure was probably nearer 72 per cent. In Committee we produced a Tory Office leaflet where it was suggested that the ratepayers' share was at present 80 per cent. At a later stage in Committee the Minister rapidly jumped up to say that the figure had fallen to 69 per cent. I shall quote the passage if the Minister so wishes, but I do not think that that is necessary. She is on record as saying that, on reflection, the figure had fallen by three percentage points from 72 to 69 per cent. Thus, we make progress from 90 per cent. to 80 per cent. to 72 per cent. to 69 per cent. and, I hope, even further.

The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): For the sake of the record, I should point out that the question of what the percentage was came up when we were discussing revenue support. In Committee I explained that the figures used by the Department were the GLC's revenue grant determinations for 1983–84. There was a difference of three percentage points because the GLC had deducted the £25 million deficit from the 1982–83 figure which had been included in the determination and the estimated surplus of £35 million. It was the exclusion of the surplus that might have made a difference of three percentage points to the Department of Transport. It was a matter of interpreting the figures, which, as I think the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge, have been very complex throughout.

Mr. Prescott: I thank the Minister of State for making that intervention. The hon. Lady has not contradicted what I have said.

Mrs. Chalker: I have put the matter straight for the record.

Mr. Prescott: I shall try to put it straighter. It is right that the travel card system has produced £35 million of extra income, and we are concerned about the cost to the ratepayer of the provision of transport for 1983–84, the last year of full control under the GLC. The £35 million went back to the GLC and was used to reduce rates for London ratepayers. That means that we cannot add that figure to the cost of transport provision for 1983–84. It seems that the Minister of State accepts that argument and in Committee she talked about the ratepayers providing 69 per cent. of the cost of the provision of transport in London. She reduced an earlier estimate by three percentage points. Percentages inevitably become confusing when statistics are thrown around. I am grateful to the Minister of State for writing to tell me that the experts from the GLC and the Government met and agreed the figures. I am pleased that there is general agreement. The totals are agreed, but items such as the £35 million that was generated by the successful travel card scheme still remain controversial.
The central issue to which the Secretary of State should address himself is the cost to London ratepayers for the provision of transport in the 1983–84 transport year. Once that figure is established, it is relevant to consider whether 55 per cent., the percentage embodied in the new clause, is realistic. I think that there is general agreement that the

percentage decreased from 72 to 69 per cent. because of the £35 million which was generated by the travel card system. Revenue support for 1983–84 was £235 million and we can agree that the generation of £35 million has reduced it to £200 million. It has been agreed between the Department and the GLC that the £25 million of council grants to London transport applies to the previous year. That cannot be regarded as a charge on the running of London transport during 1983–84. This makes it possible to reduce the total by £25 million.
There is a third item, which is controversial and which has not been accepted by the Government since the Minister's letter of 2 April. The experts have discussed a further reduction of £17 million, but the controversial item is the £48 million that London Regional Transport wishes to retain for redundancies within London Transport. That is not acceptable to the GLC, because it is not prepared to accept that level of redundancies. As the GLC is the paymaster, and as it determines policy as an elected representative body, it is entitled to make that judgment.
There is a fundamental difference between the methods employed by the Department of the Environment and the Department of Transport in assessing transport supplementary grants. The Departments do not treat them in the same way and the Department of Transport's total of about £46 million is entirely different from that of the Department of the Environment. The GLC makes the reasonable point that in judging what London Transport has cost it is reasonable to take into account the moneys required for TSG and to remove them from block grant considerations.
4.15 pm
The figures that have been exchanged between the GLC's experts and those of LRT reflect the difference between the Government's view of the figures and the GLC's approach. The Government consider that the total support amounted to £390 million, and the GLC's calculation is £321 million. If those figures are translated into percentages, the GLC's view is that the support was 55 per cent., and the Government's view is that it was 72 per cent. The travel card consideration would reduce the Government's percentage to 69 per cent. If the transport supplementary grant were treated by the Department of Transport as it is by the Department of the Environment, the percentage would be reduced to 64 per cent. The Government's figure is now much nearer to 55 per cent. and a long way from the 70 to 80 per cent. that was discussed on Second Reading.
Judgment against the Government cannot be made solely on those percentages. If the Government take control of London Transport, we can presume that they will wish to observe their own recommendations. They will wish to observe protected expenditure levels. The Government have set limits and have given the assurance that there will be no legal action if they are not exceeded. The Government's model of revenue support for London Transport would produce about £114 million. On that basis, the GLC's share would fall from 55 to 41 per cent., which would reflect a low level of ratepayer contribution.
I am sorry to bore the House with these complex arguments.

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): There are not many Members present to hear them.

Mr. Prescott: The important thing is that the right hon. Gentleman and I are here, because many ratepayers are


concerned about the proportion of the funding that will be levied on them. We can presume that the Secretary of State will not spend at a level that will lead him to penalise himself. No doubt he will spend at about the level that he advocates for other transport systems apart from the GLC and will remain within protected expenditure limits. On the Government's terms, the ratepayer would provide about 52 per cent. of the funding. If that is so, the Government can achieve a level of expenditure for the maintenance of London Transport that is less than the 55 per cent. that is embodied in the new clause. It will certainly be less than the 66 per cent. which the Government have set as a maximum.
It is hard to understand why the Government want to maintain the part of the clause that will allow a move from 66 to 100 per cent. The Ministers explained in Committee that, in effect, the Government were scared that an extreme GLC would spend all its money and leave them with the burden. That meant that they had to reserve the right to impose an extra burden on the ratepayer.
That argument can no longer be maintained, because the 1983 Act provides that once agreement has been reached on the expenditure of revenue it is not possible to increase revenue support. That is the law, so I should like to know why it is necessary for the Secretary of State to retain the right to move from 66 to 100 per cent. Notwithstanding an argument over capital requirements, the right hon. Gentleman has a clause that will allow him to claw back resources. He would be able to do so even if the requirements were said to be in capital areas and not revenue areas.
Quite frankly, the Bill gives the Secretary of State far more generous powers than he requires. It maintains the possibility of 100 per cent., which is not acceptable to the Opposition. Our new clause would allow the House to debate the matter and to impose a more realistic percentage level. We fear that the Bill will allow the Secretary of State to impose a tremendous burden on ratepayers.
I wish to give the Secretary of State one other matter for thought. He is seeking to change the means of financing capital and revenue, which presently stands at £155 million to £160 million. He told the Committee that he intends that to operate as an expenditure in every year. As the GLC is financing it out of a capital debt fund, and in revenue terms the debts are reduced to £4 million a year, that can mean only that a two thirds share for the London ratepayers is an additional 100 million above what it already costs them.
With that scale of problem, it is no surprise that the Secretary of State seeks to include 100 per cent. in the Bill. I hope that all London Members—especially those with local government experience — before they start to scream when the orders come before the House, will bear in mind what the Secretary of State is doing in the Bill. The Opposition, on behalf of London ratepayers, are giving an opportunity to provide a money Bill which we can debate in the House. If the House disagrees with the Secretary of State, it can change the percentage. It prevents the possibility of the Secretary of State finding an alternative form of financing that means reducing services, increasing fares, greater privatisation and more unemployment. That is not the solution that Londoners need.

Mr. Ridley: I shall try to respond to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), but he knows that this is complicated country and it is not easy to express

the arguments and figures in debate. I think that the House agrees that there should be a high ratepayers' contribution to the subsidy to London Regional Transport. London, which has a high per capita rateable resource, has always paid a high proportion of the subsidy. Because London is the capital city, it is visited by many tourists, so the taxpayer also pays a share. I do not wish to go into the complicated local government finance considerations mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. However, in view of London's high rateable value and the many tourists who visit it, a share of two thirds for ratepayers and one third for taxpayers makes sense. It might help the hon. Gentleman to look at the matter in that way rather than the immensely complicated calculations that he has used.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I think that I have a point that may appeal to the right hon. Gentleman. Prior to the 1968 Act, the responsibility for London Transport was held by the then Minister, but without any rate precept. Does the right hon. Gentleman believe in the adage, "No taxation without representation?" Where is that representation for the ratepayer?

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman knows that prior to 1968 London Transport's losses were small—indeed, in some years it was profitable. The problem of the large subsidy has emerged only since that time. I am not blaming either party, but simply stating that the economics have changed. That is why the question of who should pay —the ratepayer or the taxpayer—has become important. In equity, I do not think that we have the balance wrong with ratios of two thirds and one third. I intend to prove that a two thirds share is lower than Londoners paid in 1983–84 or will pay in 1984–85. We now have the figures for 1984–85, which the House will find interesting.
There are great possibilities for reducing the amount that will have to be taken from the ratepayers by reducing the cost to London Transport and, therefore, the subsidy paid to it. The more I hear about the potential for saving, the more I believe that that is the aspect on which to concentrate. That is where the ratepayers' relief, in part, will come from.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East raised questions about how the House should handle the annual ratepayers' levy and how it should be expressed in. the Bill. As he said, there is a power to increase the proportion from 67 per cent. In some ways, especially for presentational reasons, it might have been easier not to include that power. I can think of no circumstance in which it will be used. However, if our successors wanted to increase the levy, it would be silly if they had to introduce primary legislation for that purpose only. Indeed, the only way to show disagreement with primary legislation is to vote against it. There is no difference between an affirmative order procedure for increasing the proportion, which the House can vote against, and a short one-clause Bill to increase it, which the House can vote against. It is six of one and two times three of another.

Mr. Prescott: Is not one difference that the Bill can be amended so that a percentage can be changed, but that that cannot be done with an order? That is a crucial point.

Mr. Ridley: I stress that I cannot envisage circumstances in which the power would be required. I have no intention of using it. It is a hypothetical case. If an order to increase the percentage were put forward, and


the Government did not get that order, they would have to return to the House with a more acceptable percentage. A vote that defeats the Government's proposals, whether on an order or on a Bill, has exactly the same effect— and the Government have to come forward with different proposals.
There is also a power to decrease the percentage. I shall go further than I have gone before, and say that that is what I hope will happen. As we get London Transport under control and its costs are reduced, I hope to reduce not only the amount that the ratepayers pay absolutely, but what they pay proportionately.

Mr. Edward Leigh: The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) mentioned no taxation without representation. Is my right hon. Friend aware that a London-wide rate raises £80 million, while a Lincolnshire-wide rate raises only £300,000? My constituents wonder why, if Londoners want services, such as free bus passes for the elderly, they should not pay for them. My constituents and others throughout the country should not bear those heavy costs.

Mr. Ridley: I shall not seek to compare Lincolnshire and London. However, I believe it right that the costs should fall in large part on the ratepayers. There is a complicated division through TSG and RSG on how much is paid by ratepayers and how much by taxpayers. It varies with every local authority. There is a different percentage for every year for every local authority.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East wants to introduce a money Bill procedure. That would be too difficult. It would make the timetable for the annual determination even more complex. The Bill would have to go through the House by the end of the year to make the rate determination later. That would add an extra stage to the parliamentary procedure.

Mr. Prescott: No.

Mr. Ridley: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has the right target. His proposal would mean adopting that new procedure for the relatively small amount of money involved in this levy, but leaving the same procedure for the rate support grant, which involves billions of pounds. The rate support grant is simply the subject of an affirmative order, which is exactly what I am proposing for the levy. The hon. Gentleman is mixing his priorities in wanting a money Bill for LRT's expenditure of £300 million, or whatever it is, and a simple affirmative order debate for rate support grant.
There is no question of debating the police precept. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has consulted the Opposition's business managers to ascertain whether they want to accept an obligation to debate such a private Bill as well as an affirmative order on the levy. I am sure that if the Labour party cherished any hope of getting back into office, the Labour Whips would try to dissuade the hon. Gentleman from that idea.

Mr. Prescott: This is amazing. I do not believe that the right hon. Gentleman has any sympathy for local democracy. We are talking about taking over the role of determining local services. The right hon. Gentleman has made a mistake about rate support grant. Admittedly, that

involves a larger sum, but he is not now determining the rate. With the consent of the House, the right hon. Gentleman will determine the rate for those people. A rate support grant does not do that directly.

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman is, as always, quite wrong. The rate support grant determines the rate. The bigger it is, the lower the rate; the lower the rate support grant, the higher the rate. The rate support grant makes a difference far greater than this measure will ever make. The hon. Gentleman seems to be getting his priorities wrong in wanting an affirmative order for one thing and a money Bill for another.
The new clause contains suggestions that there should be consultations with the local authorities at the time of setting the rate. The GLC does not consult the boroughs when fixing its precept, and the receiver of the Metropolitan police is not statutorily required to do so when fixing the police rate. There are no precedents to suggest that there should be consultation.
Last Thursday I went through the list of consultations that we undertake. I believe that the House agrees that that is not the right thing to do. Provision is made for a three-year strategy under clause 7, informing local authorities of fare and service levels under clause 29; the annual business plan under new clause 10; the report and accounts of LRT, which are to be laid before Parliament, under clause 33; and an annual debate on the levy. Consultations can become otiose if we extend them beyond the enormous amount of work involved in those provisions.
I shall now discuss the vexed question of the percentage presently being paid. There will never be a finite precise and accepted answer to this question, as it depends on the year taken and how these matters are examined. The capital side is an especially difficult matter. The 55 per cent., which the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East has proposed, is fallacious. Payment for a capital debt incurred on assets—this is the first area of disagreement between the Government and the GLC—can be made annually as assets are acquired—for example, buses and rolling stock. That has been the GLC's practice towards London Transport. Payment can be made also by writing off, repaying or amortising the borrowing over the life of the asset, or over a shorter or longer period.
An annual amount is still to be invested for London Transport, whether that is financed by capital grant or borrowing. It is for the GLC to decide how to finance its capital investment. The GLC decided to finance that investment by annual capital grant. Only in December 1983 did the GLC decide to switch that payment by moving some of the borrowing from the housing to the transport account. The GLC decides how to finance, but the amount of money that has gone to London Transport is there for all to see. It must be right to take into account LRT's annual capital grant. It is pure creative accounting suddenly at this late stage to make a major change in the figures by switching from capital grant to borrowing.
Revenue is a complicated matter. In 1983–84—that is not the only year that we should consider—the GLC made a determination of £235 million for revenue support. The outturn may well have been only £158 million— and we have just got that figure—but the precept that the GLC charged to the ratepayers was based on £235 million. In discussing the share financed by the ratepayers, it is correct to take the figure of £235 million, not the outturn figure. The 72 per cent., which my hon. Friend the


Minister of State established in Committee, was derived from the precept, based on the £235 million revenue determination. That was the ratepayers' contribution, about which we last heard in Committee, but I know that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East seeks to chip it down by a further 3 percentage points because of the carry forward.

Mr. Prescott: It was the Minister of State who did so.

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman, not my hon. Friend the Minister of State, did that.
A deficit of £25 million was carried forward from last year. Due to the travelcard, a £35 million surplus will be carried forward this year. For the hon. Gentleman's benefit, I point out that surpluses in future years will be carried forward by the Government, thereby reducing the ratepayers' contribution for that year. It is impossible to reach complete agreement on what should happen when one has inherited a £25 million deficit and passed on a £35 million surplus. The figure works out at 72 per cent., which is one of the points of difference between the GLC and the Department. I stick to my belief that 72 per cent. is the right figure.

Mr. Prescott: The right hon. Gentleman must recognise that there is a difference between carrying forward a £35 million surplus and giving it to the ratepayer, so that the London ratepayer gets all the money. Presumably the proposal that the right hon. Gentleman has just announced means that the ratepayer would get two thirds and he would retain one third.

Mr. Ridley: No. If money is carried forward, the subsidy needed for the following year will be that much less. To that extent—if the hon. Gentleman wishes to put it that way—the ratepayer will have to produce two thirds of the reduced figure and the taxpayer one third. The basis in the Bill is that the subsidy is shared two thirds and one third. Therefore, if the subsidy is higher than expected, the excess will have to be found in that ratio, and, if it is lower than expected, the benefits will be passed on in that ratio.
My Department's figures for 1984–85 show that ratepayers will be paying 78 per cent. of the total subsidy. That calculation is not seriously challenged by the GLC, which admits that the figure will be 75 per cent. The dispute is between 69 and 72 per cent. for 1983–84 and 75 and 78 per cent. for 1984–85. I do not believe that those figures will ever be reconciled, because they depend on so many ifs—if the GLC had been receiving grant—it has not—if it had not ignored the allocation of TSG to boroughs' expenditure — it has. There are so many subjective interpretations of the calculation. However, all the figures involved in the dispute are very much higher than the two thirds included in the Bill.
If LRT were already responsible for public transport in London, ratepayers would be paying 10 per cent. less of the subsidy, as their contribution will be set at a maximum of two thirds of the total. Under the GLC's plans, ratepayers will be contributing nearly 80 per cent.
In addition, when LRT takes responsibility for public transport in London, there will be large savings from increased efficiency and reduced fraud. For example, the GLC is blocking savings of £20 million in a full year

identified by London Transport on extending the one-person operation on buses and on underground and bus engineering. I believe that there are many more savings to come.
Even more money could be saved or put to better use if the GLC abandoned its extravagant political gimmickry and its £3 million political publicity campaign. All Londoners who are ratepayers or travellers will benefit from the change to LRT, and the benefits will be won without the swingeing fare increases and closures that the scaremongers predict.
The Bill will be good for all those concerned. I believe that it contains substantial advantages for the ratepayers, not only next year, when LRT comes into existence, but over the years as we succeed in achieving the savings in the management of LRT that the managers themselves believe to be possible. I hope that the House will reject the new clause, because it would not be fair or right to include it in the Bill.

Mr. Harry Cohen: I support the new clause, which would limit the ratepayers' contribution to the running of LRT. I believe it right that that contribution should not exceed 55 per cent.
The new clause also provides for proper consultation with local authorities over the expenditure of LRT. The Bill does not provide for adequate consultation about the ratepayers' contribution. The limiting of the ratepayers' contribution and proper consultation are important elements in the new clause.
4.45 pm
The contribution of ratepayers is a vital aspect of our debates on the Bill and I am amazed that no Liberal or SDP Member is present. That is a measure of their interest in the contribution of London's ratepayers. I hope that that message gets back to those ratepayers.
The Government insist on a minimum contribution of two thirds from the ratepayers.

Mrs. Chalker: Maximum.

Mr. Cohen: It will become a minimum, because the figure can be increased merely by order.
Ratepayers will not have a two thirds share of the appointments to the management board or the passenger committee of LRT. The Secretary of State will appoint all the members of the board. The ratepayers will not have two thirds of the say in the running of LRT. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) pointed out that for many years we have operated on the principle of no taxation without representation. That should apply to LRT. If the Secretary of State wants total control of LRT, which he provides for in the Bill, he should pay for it, or he should at least pay much more than is proposed in the Bill.
The two thirds is an arbitrary figure which the Government plucked out of the air. They originally proposed a figure of 50 per cent., but changed it in Committee. There has been no proper analysis of the correct proportions between ratepayers and the Government. The Secretary of State is trying to shift the burden from the Treasury to the ratepayer.

Mr. Leigh: If the hon. Gentleman represented a seat outside London, would he still say that the ratepayers' contribution should be limited to 55 per cent.? Why should


that be so, when the rate base in London is so much higher than it is in other areas? Why should my constituents have to suffer taxation without services?

Mr. Cohen: All transport services are subsidised. No service is fully self-financing. That is why the basis of the Bill is so wrong; it suggests that public transport can be run as a business. The Secretary of State said today that London, as the capital city, is a special case and has special problems in running a public transport service. The answer to the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) is that the Secretary of State is taking total control of the running of London's public transport. If he wants that, he should pay for it and not put the burden on the ratepayer.
The Minister of State said on Thursday:
There is no hit list and there will not be, and the financial provision that the Government have approved gives no support to the GLC's allegations about the future of LT.
The hon. Lady was under pressure on that issue. She said:
For 1984–85 the Government have approved £300 million of subsidy to LT which is close to LT's budget figure in its three-year plan." — [Official Report, 5 April, 1984; Vol. 57, c. 1136.]
What the Minister did not say was that the Government's transport supplementary grant figure, showing their own support level, was about £90 million or £100 million. What the hon. Lady did not say about the subsidy is that it will not all come from the Government, but that £200 million of it will come from the ratepayers. There will be no savings for the ratepayers in that respect. The Government are taking advantage of the change to reduce the subsidy and shift the burden on to the ratepayer.

Mrs. Chalker: indicated dissent.

Mr. Cohen: The Minister shakes her head, but she cannot have it both ways. On Thursday she tried to deny that there would be service cuts. She said that the level of subsidy would still be high. It was in that connection that she mentioned the figure of £300 million. Today she is facing pressure, not about service cuts, but about the ratepayers. We are concerned that ratepayers should not be asked to fork out too much. The Secretary of State says that there will be relief for the ratepayers because savings will be made. When it suits them, the Government try to have it both ways.
When we discuss the level of services and rates, Conservative Members invariably argue for lower rates and fewer services and Labour Members invariably argue for higher rates and better services. However, in the council chambers, both sides have to spell out their proposals for the services and the rates. That is what local democracy is about.
The Secretary of State and the Minister are trying to get away with not spelling out the consequences of their proposals either on services—they say that services will not suffer—or on the ratepayers. If the ratepayers are to benefit from the Government's proposals, the Minister should spell out the consequences for services, which she failed to do on Thursday. What cuts will there be in services? How many jobs will be lost? By how much will fares rise? The Minister has a duty to answer. If it is the other way round — that services are not to be cut dramatically and that fares will not rise—how much greater will the burden be on ratepayers?
The Minister said on Thursday that there would be a subsidy of £300 million. If £200 million of that comes from ratepayers, business as well as domestic ratepayers will suffer. They will suffer from the increase in fares, which will produce higher business costs and be reflected in the London weighting settlement, and they will not make savings from the increased rates.
The 66 per cent. which the Government are trying to impose on the ratepayer is a heavy and unjustified burden. The Secretary of State has altered the basis on which transport in London is to be run. He proposes to take away the functions of the GLC. At least the GLC has to balance the interests of ratepayers with those of passengers, as well as considering the financial burdens. The Secretary of State does not have to consider the interests of the ratepayers. He does not have to calculate what the cost of his policies will be to ratepayers or, indeed, to take into account the effect of this burden in terms of rate-capping penalties.
Local authorities could suffer penalties as a result of the charge which the Secretary of State puts on them by way of the rates contribution to running LRT. The fact that the local authorities could suffer penalties as a result of that charge is, by itself, reason for them to be properly consulted. That is why the new clause specifies that the local authorities should be consulted about the overall running charge for LRT.
The debt charges of London Transport should be taken over by the Government. The Government are taking over the assets of London Transport. They are taking it over as a going concern. They should therefore take over the liabilities as well. In my view, they should write off the debt charges, at least in so far as they fall on the ratepayers.
The Bill contains many other headaches for ratepayers, particularly in connection with privatisation. It is not surprising that clause 12, which enables a massive handout to be made to private operators, is immediately followed by clause 13, which is about the ratepayers' contribution towards those private handouts. I foresee that, on marginally profitable routes at least, private operators will move in and LRT will be increasingly dependent upon private operators for the running of those services. The ratepayers will have to fork out an increasing amount, year after year, for those services. They could find that the burden upon them increases.
For the debating of those important consequences for the ratepayers, after the taking over of that local democratic function, the Government are allowing only a debate on an order in the House. London Members will have only one and a half hours in which to voice their views and defend the interests of their ratepayers on these vital matters. That is inadequate. It would be far better for LRT to promote a private Bill about the ratepayers' contribution, as proposed in the amendment, so that we can have a proper debate.
The Secretary of State placed much reliance on the fact that savings would be made, but did not spell out where they would be made. However, towards the end of his speech he said that there would be savings because of the reduction in fraud. The current GLC campaign has already reduced fraud considerably, but when fares are increased — as will happen under the Bill—there will be more fraud, so there will be no savings in that area. In any event,


it is nonsense for the Secretary of State to suggest that the reduction in fraud will enable him substantially to reduce the ratepayers' contribution.
The Minister of State and the Secretary of State have dressed themselves up, as the Government frequently do, as friends of the ratepayer. In fact, they are to tax them more and shift the burden from central Government on to the ratepayers. The trend will continue ever more in that direction. Talk about reducing fraud! The best way to reduce fraud would be to kill the Bill, as the real fraud is the Government making out that they are the taxpayers' friends, when the opposite is the truth.

Mr. John Maples: I hope that the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) will forgive me if I do not follow him into that esoteric maze of figures, as it is possible to add them up in almost any way that one wants to suit one's argument. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will set the record straight at the end of the debate.
I should like to explore one burden that will fall on ratepayers—the capital expenditure of London Regional Transport — and how it is financed. The method of financing could substantially affect the amount of expenditure that must be borne by the Government or through the rate levy, and the total affects the two thirds that will be borne by ratepayers. We are discussing an enterprise that will have nearly £2 billion worth of assets and a provisional debt limit of £100 million. There is, therefore, an assumption that almost all capital expenditure will be financed by grant awarded by the Secretary of State. LRT is planning a capital expenditure programme of about £150 million to £180 million a year. I wonder whether that is right. Capital expenditure can be financed from internal sources such as profit, if there is any, or depreciation, and from a variety of external sources such as grant, loans—they are provided for to some extent, but perhaps should be provided for to a greater extent — and leasing, which is a form of off balance sheet borrowing.
5 pm
Although LRT might not be profitable for a long time, or ever, there will almost certainly be bits of it that are profitable. Some bus or tube services or tube line extensions clearly might make a substantial positive return. In those circumstances, it is right that some of the necessary capital expenditure should be borrowed as that enables the expenditure to be spread over several years. If all of the expenditure must be financed from grant, 100 per cent. of it will fall on the ratepayers in the year in which the grant is made. If the expenditure is financed wholly or partly by a loan or by leasing, the financing of the expenditure will occur over some time. If the assets in which the money is invested are profitable, the profits will repay the loan. If the asset is not profitable and the loan must be repaid by an annual ratepayers' subsidy, at least the expenditure is still spread out. We should question the assumption that such a substantial investment programme should be financed by grant.
Conservative Members hope that, through the Bill, LRT will behave more commercially. Borrowing is a perfectly proper commercial activity and imposes discipline on how the enterprise is run as debt service payments must be made at the end of each year.
By a perverse mechanism, Budget changes to capital allowances have made leasing an especially attractive

method of financing an asset for the next few years as people are anxious to use up capital allowances while they can still do so. The lessee now makes extremely advantageous deals. London Transport started to do some leasing last year and I see that it plans to lease about £27 million worth of assets this year. That is a step in the right direction and a proper way in which to finance capital expenditure.
Will my hon. Friend the Minister say how the Department envisages LRT's capital expenditure being financed? In what circumstances would she regard it as right for LRT to borrow? In what circumstances might the Secretary of State approve borrowing and in what circumstances might he increase the £100 million limit? Although £100 million is a large sum to us, it is relatively small in the context of an enterprise which has £2 billion worth of assets and a turnover of about £1 billion. If LRT could demonstrate that it had an investment programme which could properly be financed partly or wholly by borrowing, it should be permitted to do so. They would have to be one-off expenditures which it would not be reasonable to ask ratepayers to finance in one year, or expenditures which offered some return to help finance the expenditure.
It would be right for LRT to be able to borrow. I doubt whether £100 million is enough, and I should be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister would say a little more about the policy that the Department will adopt in regard to LRT's capital expenditure.

Mr. Spearing: The hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Maples) dwelt on LRT's capital structure and expressed anxiety for economy on behalf of the ratepayer. He has a right and, perhaps, a duty to do that, but I assure him that, as a London Member who, alas, will shortly have to take responsibility for liaison between his constituents, the Department of Transport and whoever is in 55 Broadway in future, these will not be matters that will take a great deal of his time. I suspect that he will deal not with the financial matters but with the level of service that whatever financial structure there is will provide. Such considerations were notably lacking in his speech.
I intervened during the speech of the Secretary of State and said that, knowing his predilections, did he think that there should not be taxation without representation in regard to what he was saying. He neatly sidestepped the question by saying that some of the figures that he would produce would be reassuring. He dropped into the pattern that was followed by the hon. Member for Lewisham, West as he argued that if there is to be a rate precept, it will be lower than I think, not realising that I am worried about the rates and the level of services that they will provide.
The Bill goes slap bang against the major constitutional principle about taxation and representation. Right hon. and hon. Members will represent taxpayers in regard to the proportion of moneys that go to London Regional Transport directly out of the Consolidated Fund on the approval of the Secretary of State. However, we shall also be asked to represent our ratepayers in respect of the precept which the Secretary of State will, through a single vote, put on all London ratepayers whether they be domestic, commercial, business or industrial. Representing such ratepayers in that way means that we shall have a much wider responsibility in respect of transport in London which I do not welcome. That is what


must happen, however, as that is how the Government are setting the financial structure of accountability. At the moment, the rate element, of which the Secretary of State spoke, is expressed through the GLC rate. The GLC levies that rate on all London ratepayers and it is through members of the GLC that the resulting quality and detail of service is determined. It will now fall to Members of Parliament to exercise that rather unwelcome duty and we shall represent Londoners and their services.
More than that, the precept will, as far as I can see, be a constitutional novelty. It will be an extension of centralised power over local government and ratepayers such as we have never had before. The Bill gives the Secretary of State enormous powers of direction over LRT. Finally, the rate precept will in part provide profits for some contractors and private enterprise — money which now flows into London Transport. Money may be made from the provision of some services, but I doubt whether much will come from economies, such as those about which the Secretary of State so airily spoke. He talked of economies in engineering services. It is true that London Transport has considerable engineering overheads, especially for the tube railways. Our deep level bored tube system is unique. The costs of ventilation, escalators and lifts are greater for that system than for other comparable rapid transit systems, for example, in New York or Paris. The statistics provided for Conservative Members are misleading in the respect, and the economies of which the Secretary of State talked will not be available.

Mr. Maples: The hon. Gentleman does not believe that economies in the engineering services sector are available, but has he read the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on bus maintenance in London Transport which shows that substantial savings are available?

Mr. Spearing: My remarks were about the underground railways. My admiration of the existing London Transport system has not been unqualified. If the hon. Gentleman went through the files of successive chairmen of London Transport, he would find that I am one of its major critics, especially about the design and maintenance of buses. I had the pleasure of introducing a Bill to enable London Transport to go into partnership with bus production companies to provide buses to suit London conditions. I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but I was referring to the tube railways, where economies will be fewer than the Secretary of State realises.
At present we have a fine bus called the Routemaster, which was designed and built 30 years ago. That may sound old but it is a good bus; indeed, the crews tell me it is the best bus in London. It has a rear entry and requires two men. There are several thousand of them and they are in almost as good condition as when they were new. When LRT gets rid of the conductors, who are necessary and useful, especially to ladies with shopping and for the safety of passengers, what will happen to those excellent Routemaster buses? Will they be sold off? Although there may not be the savings in engineering which the Secretary of State thinks there may be, there may not be savings in buses either.
If the rate precept does not produce many savings— the proof of that pudding will be discovered only in the eating — it will have to provide profits for whatever element of London Transport is taken over by private

enterprise. The Bill makes it clear that wherever possible LRT will introduce private enterprise but no form of private enterprise will come unless there are profits. It will not make profits unless it does one of three things: take over the routes which provide cream now and help to keep going other routes which would otherwise be axed; cut existing services on the part of the service that they take over; or get grants from LRT through taxation and the precept to sustain those profits. Some will come from the precept on ratepayers. All hon. Members know that rates are unfair and that they are not the best way of raising public revenue. We cannot abolish the rates system, but where taxation can be raised in another way, we should do it.
Therefore, the House should be able to decide on the rate not by a single, unamendable Order-in-Council, but by the procedure advocated by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott)— by a money Bill, where an amendment can substitute one figure for another. That cannot be done during proceedings on a statutory instrument.

Mr. Jeremy Hanley: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a fourth way of succeeding is to operate efficiently? The hon. Gentleman did not mention that, yet the Bill is about efficiency.

Mr. Spearing: I should like to think that the hon. Gentleman was correct. The duties laid out in clause 2(1) are narrow, and neither efficiency nor service features in the general duties of LRT. However, I agree with him. I have criticised the management of London Transport on numerous occasions about the efficiency of the bus services, especially about the interval between buses and the generation of maximum traffic. That does not feature in the Bill. Its centre of gravity is not to provide as many passenger journeys in London as possible and so improve the quality of London life, but to integrate, sell off and distribute public assets. That is the motivation for the Bill.
The hon. Gentleman properly reminded me of a fourth and genuine way of producing profit where no profit exists —the rewards for the conditions and terms of service of those who work in London Transport. It is a difficult job. It involves non-social hours, working at times when others are at leisure and providing service all the time. Our London Transport workers are not over-paid. The hon. Gentleman would not suggest that nor, I hope, that economies could be made there. I am glad to see the hon. Gentleman nod in agreement with me. They need canteens —popularly known as "P and T"—at the end of the bus routes and health services. Driving in London is not a particularly healthy occupation, and the staff need good health back-up. Public employees should have recreation clubs and sports grounds, which should not be regarded as surplus to capacity and sold off.
I passed a bus garage—I shall not name it in case it gives people ideas—where there are tennis courts and a bowling green. I expect that Tory Members would consider it beautiful to sell off for housing. The hon. Member for Lewisham, West need not look askance because anybody leasing or taking over such facilities may be tempted to say that those tennis courts and sports grounds are not needed and that the space could be put to better use.
When it comes to the crunch I hope that the hon. Gentleman will support delegations of bus, tube and other


London Transport workers who may feel it necessary—I hope that it will not be — to come to him and say, "Leaving aside the question of the precept and levels of service, important though they are, please do not let them screw us down on conditions, wages and terms of service". That is one way in which a private operator and a private person, even under the arrangements we shall discuss under clause 3, could induce lower costs and, therefore, increased profits at the expense of those who operate the service. I am glad that Conservative Members are shaking their heads because if it comes to that—I hope that it will not— we can rely on their support. Even if that happens, we should discuss those matters during annual debates on annual money Bills precepting upon the citizens of London. Unless the Secretary of State accepts the new clause, that will be impossible.

Mr. Ernie Roberts: It has already been made clear in the debate that local authorities will have to make a 66 per cent. compulsory payment towards the financial support of London Regional Transport. That will mean that the rates for the 32 boroughs for the cost of transport will be fixed by the House; it will be done by dictation and not by local democracy. New clause 12 contains the London Transport Money Bill solution, which is a much more democratic method that will provide more time for discussion and amendment. Furthermore, if London's ratepayers are losing their democratic control of London's transport, they should not contribute towards the cost of running it through their rates.
The Secretary of State said that London has high capital resources. Has he never heard of the poverty in Hackney and some other London boroughs? Hackney has 25 per cent. unemployment, 16,000 people on the housing waiting list, 5,000 one-parent families, many elderly and mentally ill people, and elementary social needs that it cannot meet even now. The City of London certainly has high capital resources, to much of which it has no right since it has taken them from other boroughs.
The Secretary of State asked who should pay: ratepayer or taxpayer? To equalise the burden among the 32 boroughs—the poor boroughs as well as the richer ones —and among those who use London Transport, many of whom do not pay rates, the finance should come from central Government. They are not short of money. They have £126,000 million to spend. I have referred to that figure frequently in the House, because when hon. Members say that we cannot afford to provide various services I remind them of what they are taking from the pockets of British taxpayers, and of the way in which that money is being wasted in many areas. The Government could do no better than to spend some of that money on transport for the people of London, and for those who live in other areas when they begin to take over their transport services, as no doubt they will when they have finished with London.
Ratepayers carry a great burden for all sorts of services and even the Government recognise that rating is an unfair taxation. This is their opportunity to put it right, at least in part, by placing the burden of London Transport on central taxation and so relieving the ratepayers of this burden. However, they will not do that. Instead this Bill will increase the burdens upon ratepayers and will increase transport costs.
The GLC, which is responsible for providing money to London Transport, states that examination shows
that the actual charge on the average domestic ratepayer in 1983–84 of operating LTE in line with GLC service and financial policies, after taking proper account of TSG and bearing the maximum block grant penalty is 39p a week. If LRT had existed in 1983–84 and had operated within government's plans, the charge would have been 58p per week (i.e. 50 per cent. higher than the actual charge because of the government's proposed treatment of capital expenditure. Similar figures for the actual charge in 1984–85 and the charge for financing LRT are 58p and 60p respectively. This narrow gap hides the fact that under LRT revenue support of £190 million would be £100 million lower than determined by the Council and to achieve this would have meant at the minimum a fares increase in the region of 25 per cent. and bus mileage reduced by around 5 per cent.
That is the estimate of the body that now subsidises London Transport and which knows what it is talking about. It is based not on theory but on practice. The GLC continues:
On present estimates the financial regime which the Secretary of State intends to apply to LRT will in both proportionate and absolute terms result in a higher ratepayer contribution than at present.

Mr. Richard Tracey: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is not right for him to stand up in the Chamber and read a brief prepared for him by the GLC, of which I have a copy in front of me?

Mr. Roberts: Although hon. Members might have read this document, they have not understood it; if they have understood it, they have completely ignored it. They should take note of the advice being given to them by the GLC, because it knows what it is doing and saying from practice.
If the Government are to reduce the costs of public transport to London ratepayers they must either significantly increase fares or cut services and major capital investment. I say to the Tory Government and to the Secretary of State: stop destroying the democratic rights of Londoners. Allow them to set their own rates, to control their own transport and, furthermore, to elect their own Government.

Mr. Martin Stevens: I hope that the House will allow me to mention a few matters that are important to the London Boroughs Association. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State or my hon. Friend the Minister of State will reply to this debate on the new clause, but I hope that at some time this evening they will answer the points made by the LBA, which are fairly simple.
London Transport's bus and underground services extend in some cases beyond the Greater London area, and the association is concerned that the burden of those services should not be carried by the ratepayers of Greater London. Bus services are already subsidised by the relevant county councils, and underground services are already subsidised by central Government and will continue to be so. However, it would be helpful to the London Boroughs Association—on whose parliamentary panel I serve—if these matters could be clarified and confirmed by my ministerial friends.
5.30 pm
The second point is slightly more complex and relates to the contribution by London ratepayers to the Secretary of State's proposed expenditure on London's transport. The association claims that the two thirds provision is arbitrary and could at some time lead to —


[Interruption.] Opposition Members are suggesting that I am reading my speech from a piece of paper. When I have sat down I shall give them the piece of paper, and they will see that it contains nothing approximating to a speech.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: As it is always useful to know the sources of these things, will the hon. Gentleman assist us by saying whether someone has assisted him in the preparation of his speech?

Mr. Stevens: I began my remarks by saying that I was raising points put forward by the London Boroughs Association, on whose parliamentary panel I serve. I thought that I was declaring an interest as well as declaring the place from which these proposals emanate. I am glad to reassure the hon. Gentleman on that matter.
The association feels that the two thirds rule has been adopted arbitrarily by the Secretary of State and fears that it could prove — not at the outset, but later — a considerable burden on the ratepayers of Greater London. I understand why the Secretary of State has acted in this way, and for that reason I have not tabled new clauses or amendments. It would, however, help the association if these points were clarified.
The association expects the new LRT board to be treated as a local authority for grant-related expenditure purposes. I suspect that London Regional Transport will be treated by my right hon. Friend as a nationalised industry and, therefore, that it would be inappropriate to treat it as a local authority for such purposes. Naturally, the London Boroughs Association is concerned that those who use the service should pay for it and that in future the burden on London's ratepayers should not get out of hand. I very much hope that we shall have answers to those points.

Mr. Chris Smith: I support the new clause. It has been said that the Bill is about efficiency. That is wrong, because efficiency is never achieved by the simple substitution of a Secretary of State-appointed bureaucracy for a bureaucracy that happens to be accountable through the GLC to the voters of London. That is not the way in which efficiency in any organisation can be promoted.
The Bill is far more about accountability and political control. That is what the Government are about in taking away political control of London Transport from the GLC. It would be far more honest if the Government and their supporters said that quite openly, rather than cloaking it in words such as "efficiency". We are talking not about the efficient or inefficient administration of a particular transport undertaking, but about who controls that undertaking and makes the decisions. That is why the new clause is particularly important.

Mr. Martin Stevens: Does the hon. Gentleman consider that the six members of the London Transport Executive, who have relatively recently been appointed by the leader of the GLC to that 10-man board, are contributing to efficiency?

Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension. Those six members were appointed by the GLC, not by the leader of the GLC. Although I am not privy to the board's discussions, I have every confidence

in those members, and I have every confidence also that they are bringing much-needed sagacity to its deliberations.
The new clause seeks to reduce the percentage contribution from London's ratepayers that is envisaged under the Bill. Secondly, it insists that when setting that contribution the Secretary of State consults the GLC, the Common Council and the London boroughs. Thirdly, it seeks to enshrine the Secretary of State's decision in a money Bill—to be debated by the House—rather than by means of an order.
Those three purposes are extremely worth while and necessary. We are talking about a decision by the Secretary of State for Transport effectively on behalf of London's ratepayers. In determining the overall level of contribution of London's ratepayers to the administration, running, facilities and capital expenditure of London Transport, the Secretary of State is effectively levying a rate upon the people of London.
Recently, this House debated a Bill—and it is being considered in another place this very day—in which the Secretary of State for the Environment took upon himself decisions to limit the amount that local authorities could levy on their ratepayers. Many of us rightly argued that that was profoundly undemocratic and that it removed rights from the voters in those local authority areas. That was a valid and necessary argument then, but how much more so is it now when the Secretary of State for Transport — in no way accountable to the people of London except through London Members—takes it upon himself to levy a rate on the people of London? To my mind, that is an extremely undemocratic form of expenditure and taxation.
The new clause does not seek to do away with that power altogether— that would be too much to expect from the Government. Instead, it seeks to claim that at the very least they should, first, not increase the amount that London ratepayers will have to contribute compared with what they contribute now and, secondly, that they should consult the GLC, the Common Council and the London boroughs each year when embarking on this exercise. That, surely, is not too much to ask of the man who is taking upon himself a rate-levying power.
If the Secretary of State hastens to tell us that he has no intention of increasing the levy that London ratepayers are to spend, is it his intention to reduce massively the capital investment that London Transport undertakes? That is the direction in which the figures in the Bill will lead us if he says that the cash contribution—never mind the percentage—of London ratepayers is not to rise. Their percentage contribution, under the Bill as it stands, will rise. If their cash contribution is not to rise, the overall amount of capital investment must fall. If that is the case, what future can we possibly expect for London Transport, which has been grossly under-invested in past years? Its future surely lies in better, more sensible and more fruitful investment, rather than in less investment.
The Secretary of State must be frank with the House. He must tell us either that under his Bill as it stands the ratepayers' contribution is to increase, or that the contribution that anyone makes to the capital investment of London Transport in the future will decrease. Either of those two events must happen if the Bill goes through as it stands.
Like any good and law-abiding Opposition, we are seeking in the new clause to make the Secretary of State's


life a bit easier. We are seeking to enable him to carry on with a full capital investment programme, but at the same time not to levy a greater rate upon the people of London than they now have. I hope that the Secretary of State will see the sweet reasonableness of the case and accept the new clause.
I have dwelt only upon the first two provisions of the new clause—the one which seeks not to increase the ratepayers' contribution and the one which seeks some degree of consultation. I shall now touch briefly on the third provision of the new clause, concerning a money Bill.
It is only appropriate that the House of Commons should want to discuss a capital contribution to London Transport of the magnitude that we expect to see under clauses 12 and 13, for many important capital projects will be at stake. It is right and proper that GLC money Bills come before the House. In exactly the same way, the new clause asks that the Secretary of State should come before the House with an RT money Bill which the House can discuss if it wishes.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) dwelt with great perspicacity on the difference between an order which might be made by the Secretary of State and a money Bill which can be properly debated and to which amendments can be tabled. When we are effectively talking about a rate levy upon the people of London — the determination of an amount which the ratepayers of London are asked to contribute and to spend — a debate should take place in this House. Hon. Members representing London seats will be the only accountable forum for London ratepayers in the matter, and they should have the opportunity to challenge, to amend and to discuss such a measure. That, surely, is not too much for us to ask.
The new clause will provide the Secretary of State with a sensible procedure which can be followed when he takes the awesome decisions that he will have to take under the measure to levy a rate upon Londoners and to decide how that rate and his own contribution should be spent. The new clause raises three very important issues. It seeks to give Londoners at least a shred of democratic accountability and some degree of say over what the Secretary of State will do with their money once he is exercising the powers enshrined in the Bill.

Mr. Corbyn: My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) has covered most of the ground that I intended to cover; therefore, I shall be brief.
The new clause—which I hope the House will accept —does not fundamentally solve the problem raised by the very bad Bill that is before us, which removes from Londoners some fundamental democratic rights. The new clause will ensure only that the Secretary of State has to undertake some form of consultation with elected representatives of the people of London.
The hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Stevens) was correct in saying that the new body, LRT, is likely to be treated as a nationalised industry rather than as a local authority. I trust that that means that the hon. Gentleman will be voting with us on the new clause. If he is serious about local democracy, he must at least support the new clause; indeed, he should oppose the Bill altogether.
Londoners elect, through the GLC, the people who run London's transport system; they appoint the members of the board. The members of the board are accountable to the GLC and the GLC is open to re-election.
In 1981, one of the major features of the GLC election campaign was transport policy and the administration of London Transport. In most GLC elections in my experience, transport has been the major issue, because it is of great concern to many people throughout London. They are concerned with the levels of fares, the services that are provided, and the methods by which the transport system is controlled. If the Bill goes through, that accountability will be lost. If the new clause is accepted, there will be some possibility of local people being able to go to their own locally elected councillors and make representations about various aspects of the service, rather than the Secretary of State arriving at the House, presenting his annual London transport Bill, and the House voting on it a few days later. If the new clause is accepted, it will at least mean that the local authority will have a period of consultation.
In the borough represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury and myself, there are several London Transport and British Rail facilities at some risk. The North London line is the subject of a considerable amount of GLC support in its development and maintenance, and possibly in regard to its long-term running costs. I believe that that line has been put at risk by the management of British Rail. Therefore, I hope that the Secretary of State will assure us that the line is not at risk. I hope that he will also assure the House that, in the annual presentation of his London Transport Bill, we shall have at least nine months in which to consult adequately our constituents to find out what they think of his proposals for London's transport system.
Nothing that I have heard has led me to doubt the validity of the GLC's fear that the Arsenal tube station may be closed. How will the people in that area be able to learn from the Secretary of State, in the space of a few days between the publication of his Bill and the House voting on it, what are his proposals for that tube station, which provides a particularly important local facility for them? If political pressures on the Secretary of State are to mean anything, it is not good enough to say that once a year the House will have a short debate on London's transport and vote upon it.
Many of us who represent London constituencies already complain that we find it difficult to raise matters concerning the administration of London's police force through the Metropolitan police, where there is no democratic control, save for the Home Secretary's statement and any questions that we can put to him. It is not good enough for the same system to be repeated on London's transport.
It is crucial to many people that we have a good transport system in London, and a transport system that is available to all. The proper motive for that transport system is not how little money the Government can spend on it, how bad the service can be or what profit it can make. The motive should be to ensure that everyone in London can travel about the city and can have confidence that there will always be a transport system. It should be to give those who are planning London's other transport systems, such as roads and road development, confidence


that there will be continued expansion of public transport undertakings, rather than a closure of some services and cutting of others, which can only lead to more traffic.
The new clause goes some way towards ensuring that Londoners have some mechanism for raising their legitimate concerns about the future of London transport, and lays a small requirement on the Secretary of State so that he will be forced to listen to the elected voice of London before he produces his plan. What was said to us last week leads me to believe that a plan will be produced by a bunch of experts and we shall have to vote after a short debate in the House, without adequate time for consultation.
This matter is fundamentally important to the rest of the country because if the Government are planning to take this action against the people of London, to produce this kind of transport policy, what future is there for democratic control of transport undertakings elsewhere? Is this a dry run for the rest of the country, so that eventually all public transport undertakings will be under the direct control of the Secretary of State with appointed boards that can sell off assets, cut services and license operators at will?
This is a fundamentally bad Bill, but I hope that the new clause will add something to it and at least give some semblance of democratic control to the people.

Mr. Ridley: With the leave of the House, I shall reply briefly to some of the few new points that have been made.
I start with my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Stevens), who suggested that it was not fair that services that ran beyond the boundaries of the GLC should be financied by the boroughs through the rates. With the buses, London ratepayers will not be paying for the services that go beyond the boundaries, because if subsidy is needed it will be provided by the out-county ratepayers. Only tiny amounts of the subsidy to London Transport go on tube services that go beyond the boundaries of the GLC. My hon. Friend will no doubt agree that the fact that taxpayers are paying one third of the cost of the subsidy could be said to cover that small amount.
My hon. Friend's second point was that the London Boroughs Association was worried that the two thirds for the ratepayers could get out of hand, and his concern may have been about capital. That point was also made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Maples). It does not make any difference how the capital for LRT, for the investments that go to the business of running public transport, is financed. The GLC has paid 100 per cent. capital grants and we shall continue that practice for the main part of the public transport business.
If we were to allow LRT to borrow for that capital, in the end the ratepayers would have to make repayments when the borrowings became due as well as repaying interest and there would be an ever greater amount of liability as the years went by. That would be to economise now and to pay much more later. That may have been the worry at the back of the mind of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West. However, there is no point in doing that while London Transport—or LRT—is inherently unprofitable and while its investment is not particularly lumpy—that is, it does not go up and down, but keeps more or less steady over the years.

Mr. Maples: There were two circumstances in which it seemed to me that it might make good sense to borrow. One was where there was a substantial capital investment programme that would not continue at that rate for ever, so that there was a lump—although if investment were to continue for ever at £100 million a year and the ratepayers were effectively to service that debt it would not matter whether it was borrowed or not. However, there will be circumstances in which that may not be so. Secondly, particular capital investment programmes may be able to show a commercial rate of return on the investment—the new line to terminal 4 at Heathrow might be one. If that project could be profitable, even if LRT as a whole was not, would it not be in the ratepayers' interest to borrow capital to do that rather than to finance it from grants?

Mr. Ridley: I agree with both of my hon. Friend's points, and those are our intentions. Profitable activities or a major one-off investment should be financed by borrowing. However, there will not be many of the latter, and there will be a fairly even investment programme, so it seems sensible to pay capital grants. That means that there will be no creation of the capital liabilities about which my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham was worried. I am convinced that the many economies that can be made will mean a diminishing ratepayers' contribution over the years.
This brings me to the point raised by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), who said that either I shall have to put up the ratepayers' contribution, or I shall have to cut investment. I am putting the ratepayers' contribution down—next year it would have been 78 per cent., but I am putting it down to 67 per cent.—and I shall not cut investment. I shall do none of the dire things suggested by the hon. Gentleman. That is all that needs to be said on that.
The ratepayers are getting a better deal out of this Bill. Their contribution will be less than it has been, and as efficiency begins to work its way in it will come down still further. On that basis, the whole of the Opposition's case does not need answering, because they have argued for the proposition that the opposite will happen. I do not believe that it will, and I urge the House to reject the new clause.

Mr. Prescott: The debate has been about local democracy, about which we shall hear more this week.
There have been considerable differences between the difficult statistical definitions of how one can treat London Transport's accounts. Probably the most interesting point in the debate was made by the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Stevens), who called for more nationalisation, greater efficiency and improvement in the London transport system. That is not the sort of comment that one hears regularly from Conservative Benches about nationalised industries. I mention it in passing.
The Secretary of State spoke about figures and, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), told us how he would be saving the London ratepayers' money and how he would reduce their contribution. It is important for us to bear in mind what these arguements mean.
The Secretary of State then spoke about capital financing and amortising debts, but that is the legitimate way to borrow for money requirements, and it is also a legitimate local authority practice. However, the Secretary


of State failed to answer the real point, because I think he fails to understand the nature of the problem, which is that the £150 million in capital payments made by the GLC for last year and for the coming year for the running of London's transport is a charge on the revenue of London Transport of approximately £4 million. That is what it is by way of funding from a capital debt fund. If all that is to be found in one year, which is what the Secretary of State is suggesting, that must mean that more than £140 million extra will be put on the burden of running London Transport in the first year. I am sure that the London boroughs are concerned about that method of financing London's public transport. That is the issue, and nothing that the Secretary of State said today denied that that would happen. That is one reason why he will need a bigger ceiling on the ratepayers' contribution.
The Secretary of State appears to accept that the total amount of revenue support of £235 million is the sum involved. However, he got it wrong when he talked about £35 million extra income being created by the travel card. If he uses the £235 million total, he is really talking about a projection and not about reality. The reality after running the system for a year was that the total cost in revenue support was £200 million and not £235 million. He was working on an artificial ceiling. The reality is that the surplus at present under the GLC is such that that £35 million goes back to the ratepayer. If there are surpluses in the future in this profitable London transport system that the right hon. Gentleman promises us, they will be distributed in the ratio of two thirds to one third, so that the ratepayer will get back less of the surplus and presumably the taxpayer will gain.
What the right hon. Gentleman did not reject, and presumably could not reject, was that on the basis of the GLC share for the ratepayer, observing all the right hon. Gentleman's recommendations under his protected expenditure levels the ratepayers' share will be 45 per cent. I presume that that is the right hon. Gentleman's target——

Mr. Ridley: indicated dissent.

Mr. Prescott: If that is not the target, I do not know why we have protected expenditure levels recommended to the local authorities to observe. I thought that the target was supposed to show what it should cost to run a transport system. If the Secretary of State rejects that argument, he rejects the philosophy of the PELs themselves—and he implements them.
The right hon. Gentleman rushed on from 1983–84, where we have real expenditures on which to make a judgment, into the projection for 1984–85. But here again he will have to deal with figures in projecting what the ratepayers' share shall be. He said that it was about 78 per cent. That is bound to be based on projections. It cannot be anything else. The Secretary of State has already said that the travel card resulted in £35 million more in income than was projected at the beginning of the year. How he can go on to say how much the ratepayers will pay this year without the final figure defies imagination, though it is not surprising coming from a former Treasury Minister.
Looking at the figures for 1984–85, even balancing the right hon. Gentleman's argument, the way that he treats transport supplementary grants is distinctly different from the way that the Department of the Environment does it and makes me wish that the two Departments would get

together to decide the fair way of determining TSG. But taking them into account this year, London Transport will be receiving £38 million less on the basis of the present calculation made by the Department of Transport. If the system is to be maintained, that will have to be found by the ratepayer.
The Government have pretty well made sure that there will be a tremendous increase in the costs of maintaining London's transport system, and in that case it will be denied the £38 million. If the right hon. Gentleman is running the system and directing London Regional Transport, the bill will not be so great. By increasing the penalties for the lack of resources and by reducing London Transport's income this year by nearly £38 million, the right hon. Gentleman pretty well guarantees that he has set up the Aunt Sally so that he can tell the electorate and the ratepayers, "We shall reduce it by 10 per cent." If he changes the calculation of the TSG, I have no doubt that he will be able to achieve it overnight without worrying about affecting levels of employment, effeciency and so on.
As for the levels of efficiency, today's debate really means that large savings will be made out of redundancies. Government supporters say quite happily that the Commission report showed that many more redundancies could be made. Mr. Bright, who is in charge of London Transport, says that it is possible to save considerably more by making people redundant. Although that may reduce the sums paid by London ratepayers, presumably taxpayers will pay more in their contributions towards redundancies and the maintenance of unemployment. Since this Government came to power the sums that they have paid in redundancies have totalled more than £6,000 million. The taxpayers' share of the burden of that policy will increase, albeit that London ratepayers will bear a reduced amount.
We have heard a considerable amount about the fares increase. The GLC has paid considerably more to freeze fares, and we hope that the Secretary of State will maintain that position. But it is expensive to the GLC. It represents an extra charge of £35 million, which affects costs in the year 1984–85. Nevertheless, presumably the Government are committed to a price increase equal to the level of inflation, which in London presumably means at least a 6 per cent. increase. We shall start the spiral yet again, as we saw when the Tories had control of the metropolitan areas, with prices going up with inflation, driving people off the buses, reducing services and resulting in an inadequate transport service in the rest of the country.
The new clause seeks to allow more consultation, as asked for by the London boroughs, and it is no consolation to the House to hear the Secretary of State say that, because there is no legal requirement for the police to consult local authorities about the rate precept, that should encourage the House to consider that local authorities do not have the right to be consulted about a rate precept on them for the provision of public transport.
I do not think that anyone has denied that the London Transport Money Bill proposed in the clause will provide more time for the House to debate the issue. It will provide the opportunity for amendments to be made to the percentage involved in the Bill. For anyone to suggest, as the Secretary of State has, that an order is somehow the same as a Bill defies imagination. That argument cannot possibly be accepted even by Government supporters.
Incidentally, as my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) pointed out, the Government's proposal raises the spectre of devolution yet again. In the past we heard a great deal about the so-called West Lothian question — whether all hon. Members in this House could decide matters relating specifically to Scotland. Now we shall have the so-called London question—can everyone in the House determine London transport services and the rate supplementary levied upon the ratepayers? Surely that is not acceptable.
We have established a case that a rate supplementary grant can be maintained within the 55 per cent. limit that we propose in the clause, but it is not an ideal way of dealing with it. The Opposition believe that it should be dealt with by the local authorities. It is a local service. It is not the role of the House to get involved in the details of transport embodied in the Bill. It will be bad for the ratepayers. It will be bad for transport users. Overall, we believe that it will be bad for London. I have no hesitation in recommending to the House that it should support the clause.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 164, Noes 260.

Division No. 235]
[6.07 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Eastham, Ken


Alton, David
Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Ellis, Raymond


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Evans, John (St. Helens N)


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Ewing, Harry


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Fatchett, Derek


Barron, Kevin
Faulds, Andrew


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Bell, Stuart
Fisher, Mark


Benn, Tony
Flannery, Martin


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Bermingham, Gerald
Foster, Derek


Bidwell, Sydney
Fraser, J. (Norwood)


Blair, Anthony
George, Bruce


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Boyes, Roland
Godman, Dr Norman


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Golding, John


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Gould, Bryan


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Harman, Ms Harriet


Buchan, Norman
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith


Campbell, Ian
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Haynes, Frank


Canavan, Dennis
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Heffer, Eric S.


Clarke, Thomas
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Clay, Robert
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Hoyle, Douglas


Cohen, Harry
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Coleman, Donald
Hughes, Roy (Newport East)


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Corbett, Robin
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)


Corbyn, Jeremy
John, Brynmor


Cowans, Harry
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Crowther, Stan
Kennedy, Charles


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Kirkwood, Archibald


Deakins, Eric
Leadbitter, Ted


Dobson, Frank
Leighton, Ronald


Dormand, Jack
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Dubs, Alfred
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Litherland, Robert


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)





Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


McCartney, Hugh
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Robertson, George


McGuire, Michael
Rooker, J. W.


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


McKelvey, William
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Maclennan, Robert
Rowlands, Ted


McNamara, Kevin
Ryman, John


McTaggart, Robert
Sedgemore, Brian


McWilliam, John
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Marek, Dr John
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)


Martin, Michael
Skinner, Dennis


Maxton, John
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Maynard, Miss Joan
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)


Meacher, Michael
Snape, Peter


Meadowcroft, Michael
Spearing, Nigel


Michie, William
Steel, Rt Hon David


Mikardo, Ian
Stott, Roger


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Strang, Gavin


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Tinn, James


Nellist, David
Torney, Tom


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Wainwright, R.


O'Brien, William
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


O'Neill, Martin
Wareing, Robert


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Weetch, Ken


Patchett, Terry
Welsh, Michael


Pavitt, Laurie
White, James


Pendry, Tom
Wigley, Dafydd


Pike, Peter
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Winnick, David


Prescott, John
Woodall, Alec


Randall, Stuart



Redmond, M.
Tellers for the Ayes:


Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)
Mr. James Hamilton and 


Richardson, Ms Jo
Mr. Don Dixon.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Bulmer, Esmond


Aitken, Jonathan
Butcher, John


Alexander, Richard
Butterfill, John


Amess, David
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Ancram, Michael
Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)


Arnold, Tom
Carttiss, Michael


Ashby, David
Chalker, Mrs Lynda


Aspinwall, Jack
Chapman, Sydney


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Chope, Christopher


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Churchill, W. S.


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Baldry, Anthony
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Cockeram, Eric


Batiste, Spencer
Colvin, Michael


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Conway, Derek


Bendall, Vivian
Coombs, Simon


Benyon, William
Cope, John


Berry, Sir Anthony
Couchman, James


Best, Keith
Crouch, David


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Dickens, Geoffrey


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Dicks, Terry


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Dorrell, Stephen


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Dover, Den


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Dunn, Robert


Braine, Sir Bernard
Durant, Tony


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Dykes, Hugh


Bright, Graham
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)


Brinton, Tim
Emery, Sir Peter


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Evennett, David


Brooke, Hon Peter
Eyre, Sir Reginald


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Browne, John
Fallon, Michael


Bruinvels, Peter
Fookes, Miss Janet


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Forman, Nigel


Buck, Sir Antony
Fox, Marcus


Budgen, Nick
Franks, Cecil






Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Moynihan, Hon C.


Freeman, Roger
Mudd, David


Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)
Newton, Tony


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Nicholls, Patrick


Glyn, Dr Alan
Normanton, Tom


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Norris, Steven


Goodlad, Alastair
Onslow, Cranley


Gower, Sir Raymond
Oppenheim, Philip


Gregory, Conal
Ottaway, Richard


Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Grist, Ian
Parris, Matthew


Ground, Patrick
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Grylls, Michael
Patten, John (Oxford)


Gummer, John Selwyn
Pawsey, James


Hanley, Jeremy
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hannam,John
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Hayes, J.
Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)


Hayhoe, Barney
Powell, William (Corby)


Hayward, Robert
Powley, John


Henderson, Barry
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Price, Sir David


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Proctor, K. Harvey


Hind, Kenneth
Raffan, Keith


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Rathbone, Tim


Holt, Richard
Renton, Tim


Howard, Michael
Rhodes James, Robert


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Rifkind, Malcolm


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Key, Robert
Roe, Mrs Marion


King, Rt Hon Tom
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Lang, Ian
Rost, Peter


Latham, Michael
Rowe, Andrew


Lawler, Geoffrey
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Lester, Jim
Ryder, Richard


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Lightbown, David
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.


Lloyd, Ian (Havant)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Lord, Michael
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Luce, Richard
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Lyell, Nicholas
Shersby, Michael


McCrindle, Robert
Silvester, Fred


Macfarlane, Neil
Skeet, T. H. H.


MacGregor, John
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Maclean, David John
Speed, Keith


McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Speller, Tony


McQuarrie, Albert
Spencer, Derek


Madel, David
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Major, John
Squire, Robin


Malins, Humfrey
Stanbrook, Ivor


Malone, Gerald
Stanley, John


Maples, John
Stern, Michael


Marlow, Antony
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Mates, Michael
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Mather, Carol
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Maude, Hon Francis
Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Stokes, John


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stradling Thomas, J.


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Sumberg, David


Mellor, David
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Merchant, Piers
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mills,Iain (Meriden)
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Miscampbell, Norman
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Mitchell, David (NW Hants)
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Moate, Roger
Thome, Neil (Word S)


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Thornton, Malcolm


Monro, Sir Hector
Thurnham, Peter


Montgomery, Fergus
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Moore, John
Tracey, Richard


Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard





Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Wiggin, Jerry


Waldegrave, Hon William
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Walden, George
Winterton, Nicholas


Waller, Gary
Wolfson, Mark


Wardle, C. (Bexhill)
Wood, Timothy


Watson, John
Woodcock, Michael


Watts, John
Yeo, Tim


Wells, Bowen (Hertford)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Wells, John (Maidstone)



Wheeler, John
Tellers for the Noes:


Whitfield, John
Mr. Archie Hamilton and


Whitney, Raymond
Mr. Michael Neubert.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 3

GENERAL POWERS

Mrs. Chalker: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 3, line 10, leave out from 'Any' to 'may' in line 13 and insert
'agreement entered into by London Regional Transport by virtue of subsection (2) above for the provision by any other person of any such public passenger transport services shall include such provision as appears to London Regional Transport to be appropriate for securing the proper discharge of their general duty under section 2(1) of this Act; and, without prejudice to the preceding provision, any agreement entered into by London Regional Transport by virtue of subsection (2) above'.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment (a) to the proposed amendment, after '2(1)' insert '2(2) and 2(3)'.

Mrs. Chalker: Amendment No. 4 deals with the point which arose, and was extensively debated, in Committee. It seeks to respond to points made by the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) and other hon. Members. In Committee, at column 311, I said that I agreed with the purpose of amendment No. 25 and would look for something that we could table on Report, which we are now doing.
The amendment makes it clear that, in entering any agreement with an independent operator to provide a bus or train service for LRT under clause 3(2), London Regional Transport must include an appropriate provision in the agreement to ensure that the independent operator properly discharges his general duty under clause 2(1). In Committee, the hon. Member for Barking introduced two amendments, the intention of which was to strengthen the relationship between the agreement under clause 3(2) and the general duty of LRT under clause 2(1). I accepted the spirit of one of those amendments, and amendment No. 4 fulfils that undertaking completely. It establishes a mandatory link between the general duty to provide public passenger transport services and agreements which deal with the provision of such services.
Amendment (a), in the name of the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), seeks to take amendment No. 4 further. I believe that the hon. Gentleman wishes to refer explicitly to clause 2, subsections (2) and (3). I shall deal with those subsections in turn and say why I believe that the hon. Gentleman's amendment is unnecessary, and that amendment No. 4 fulfils everything discussed in Committee which was acceptable on both sides.
The reference in amendment No. 4 to the proper discharge of LRT's general duty under clause 2(1) automatically includes clause 2(2), because clause 2(2) does not itself contain a duty. It merely states how the


general duty is to be carried out. It would therefore be wrong to refer to it specifically. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not seek to press the point. As I said to the hon. Member for Barking in Committee, it is not that we do not wish to do what he intends, but that it would be superfluous to write this into the legislation.
The reference to the clause (2)(1) general duty, strictly speaking, includes the relevant parts of subsection (3), because that is also concerned in part with how the general duty in subsection (1) is to be carried out. In entering any clause 3(2) agreement—an agreement by an independent operator to provide services for LRT under contract— LRT will always have to satisfy itself that its action is consistent with the discharge of clause 2(3). However, the answer is not as clear-cut as it was in clause 2(2).
I should like to be helpful to the Member for Newham, South. I shall look again at the drafting of the introduction to clause 3(3), which is the relevant reference, and consider whether it is possible to amend it further in another place to establish a firmer link between clause 3(2) agreements and the duty on LRT in clause 2(3). That may seem a little convoluted, but, with amendment No. 4 in place, which improves the situation, it will be better to see how that works out, and to amend separately the clause 2(3) point in the amended clause 3(3), as it will be, in another place. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is satisfied that I am seeking to meet his point. I understand why he thinks that it is important.
We have no doubt that any contractor carrying out services on behalf of LRT must behave in exactly the same way as LRT, LT bus or LT underground would in carrying out those similar services. If contractors can provide a service more economically, it must be in the interests of Londoners that that should happen. This must be at a standard no worse than that provided by LT.
I hope that Opposition Members will acknowledge that in amendment No. 4 I am seeking to meet not only the points made in Committee in amendment No. 25, but in part of amendment (a) to amendment No. 4.

Mr. Spearing: This short debate illustrates the value of Report stages. Although the matter was discussed to some extent in Committee, and the Minister has brought forward an amendment to meet the points made in that debate, she rightly says that they do not go far enough from my point of view. Report stage gives an opportunity to press the point further. However, I say straight away that I am grateful for the point that the Minister has made. We shall look forward to the introduction of an amendment in another place. It may be, therefore, that I shall not press amendment (a) to a vote.
This apparently complex matter concerns the conditions that London Transport shall lay on any of its subsidiaries, contractors or those who are carrying services for it and, indeed, the London public under the auspices of the Bill. Amendment (a) would to some extent tighten up the degree to which those subsidiaries and contractors must abide by the duties of LRT. The reference in amendment (a) to clause 2, subsections (2) and (3), relates to the duties of LRT. It is to those duties that I wish to refer. The question of how the duties of the new statutory body are performed is important. If any legal proceeding

takes place as to whether they are performed or whether they are subsidiaries or contractors, I have no doubt that this part of the Bill will be important.
The duties laid upon LRT are contained in two parts in the Bill. Clause 2(1) lays down a general duty, and subsection states:
In carrying out that duty London Regional Transport shall have due regard to—

(a) the transport needs for the time being of Greater London; and
(b) efficiency, economy and safety of operation."

It is clear that, although the general duties may have to be performed in that way, the transport needs of Greater London for the time being and the efficiency, economy and safety of operation do not come within the statutorily defined general duties of LRT. Earlier, the Minister kindly gave us some information about a change, but by a very good sleight of hand she managed to slide over this point. However, amendment No. 4 refers to
such provision as appears to London Regional Transport to be appropriate for securing the proper discharge of their general duty under section (2)(1) of this Act".
Thus, it is the general duty that will determine how the subsidiaries operate. Although they must carry out those duties in a particular way, it is the definition of general duties that counts.
6.30 pm
In 1933, the London Passenger Transport Bill was enacted. Under that Act, the board's general duty was much more specific and particular than that before us today. Section 3(1) of that Act states:
It shall be the general duty of the Board so to exercise their powers under this Act as to secure the provision of an adequate and properly co-ordinated system of passenger transport for the London Passenger Transport Area (as hereinafter in this Act defined), and for that purpose, while avoiding the provision of unnecessary and wasteful competitive services, to take from time to time such steps as they consider necessary for extending and improving the facilities for passenger transport in that area in such a manner as to provide most efficiently and conveniently for the needs thereof.
That is an excellent general duty, and, as the House may have realised, there are several directions there that are not contained in the Bill.
The Act contains the phrase
an adequate and properly co-ordinated system".
Those words to not appear in the general duties before us.
The Act also mentions
avoiding the provision of unnecessary and wasteful
competition. I should have thought that that would have greatly appealed to this Government, yet it does not appear in the general duties now before us. Indeed, the important phrase
for extending and improving the facilities for passenger transport in that area
does not appear either. Thus, quite apart from the competition point, two major general duties, which are absent from the provisions before us, were placed on the old London Passenger Transport Board by the House more
It is the split between the definition of general duty and the manner in which it shall be carried out that gives us some cause for concern. In the Transport (London) Act 1969 similar general duties appear. The Act states:
Subject always to the requirements of section 7(3) of this Act, it shall be the general duty of the Executive to exercise and to perform their functions in accordance with principles from


time to time laid down or approved by the Council, in such manner as, in conjunction with the Railways Board and the Bus Company"—
that is Green Line or London Country—
and with due regard to efficiency, economy and safety of operation, to provide or secure the provision of such public passenger transport services as best meet the needs for the time being of Greater London.
Meeting the need
for the time being of Greater London
was placed fairly and squarely in section 5 of the Transport (London) Act 1969, yet that does not appear in the general duties in the Bill.
I believe that in Committee there was a good deal of discussion on the point, including the obligation of integration. That word has been very much on the lips of both the Minister and the Secretary of State and has supposedly been on their minds, yet it is markedly absent from the legislation. That is what led me to table the amendment. I am glad that these points were raised in Committee to some extent by my hon. Friends, and I thank the Minister for tabling amendment No. 4 and for going a little further in accepting half of my amendment (a). However, I would have been much happier if there had been a completely new general duty, because the duty contained in the Bill is not adequate for the needs of Greater London.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I rise briefly to support the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). We had a long debate in Committee about the duties involved. I then expressed great unhappiness about the fact that there was a double inadequacy. The first inadequacy was that the duties were not broad or deep enough, and the second was that there was no way of enforcing them. After all, under clause 2(6) no member of the public can go to court and say that the LRT is not doing its job.
Amendment (a) at least allows a broader and more detailed definition of duty, which is more like the duty on the present board and its predecessors. That is important if we are not to lose sight of the fact that primarily London Transport has been, is, and will be a social service. All its duties should be described in a way that makes that clear. That is why clause 2(2) and clause 3, which refer to the co-ordination and integration of all the services, contain fundamental objectives that should be the objectives of all the component parts of LRT, of the main board, and—until they are integrated—of the British Railways Board in the region comprising London and the south-east. The Government may be willing to go halfway down that road, but I hope that they are willing to go even further before the matter is finally dealt with.

Mr. Peter Snape: The House will be grateful to the Minister for the way in which she opened this short debate, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) for tabling amendment (a).
As has been said, the amendments refer to clause 3, which allows LRT to enter into agreements with private operators for the provision of transport in the LRT area. A few moments ago, the Minister said that if private operators could provide a service economically, it was presumably in the interests of Londoners to provide it. No Opposition Member has ever doubted that such a service could be provided by private operators. Indeed, in Committee that point was discussed extensively. The main

burden of our argument was that we appreciated that such a service could be widely and economically—to use the Minister's words—provided. That is not the argument. We know that any operator could operate a service along, for example, Oxford street. Private operators would be primarily interested in such locations, but they would not be interested in running all-night buses in the outer London suburbs.
Our concern, as illustrated by amendment (a), is that the very high standards of public safety offered by the present London Transport Board and, we hope, by LRT — if that body must be inflicted on us — should be equalled and maintained by any private operator that LRT is unwise enough to allow to provide a service in its area.
One of the purposes behind the amendment is integration. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) will be as aware as I am that the purpose behind the Bill is almost entirely contrary to that.

Mrs. Chalker: That is not so.

Mr. Snape: The Minister should take care of her voice during this debate. I say that in a kindly sense. There will be no integrated service if we countenance private operators of the sort which have caused us to express concern in Committee and on the Floor of the House. Integration is not the name of their game. Inevitably, their interest is profitability. If they provide a service that has played a large part in the aims of the transport system over the years, their primary purpose will be to make money. I do not blame them for that. They would be less than human if that was not their main purpose. However, standards of maintenance and the provision of services to which London Transport has long been dedicated must be insisted upon in the operations of private operators. The Minister has made some sympathetic noises about that principle. Therefore, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South will not feel it necessary to cause the House to divide on his amendment. I assure him that the amendment makes eminent sense, and I hope that the Government will recognise that when the Bill is discussed in another place.

Mr. Spearing: My hon. Friend's advice is sound and I intend to take it. He will be aware that London Transport has a central training school for drivers and we all know that it has a worldwide reputation for the safety of its operations. Would it be right to insist that all operators engage drivers who have been subject to that training and have met the standards set by London Transport at the Chiswick driving school? That is an example of the way in which we could maintain safety standards, even under the Bill.

Mr. Snape: I bored the Committee for a considerable time with stories of how I once drove a Metro bus around the streets of Birmingham. I hesitate to repeat those stories.

Mr. Tom Pendry: Why not?

Mr. Snape: My hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) has the advantage, because, if I repeated my stories, they would be new to him, but I should be trying the patience of those who served on the Committee.
Many private operators operate their services quite safely, but they often use part-time drivers, who inevitably


do not have the same high standards as the full-time public service vehicle driver. I hope that the Government will recognise the sense of the amendment and will write it into the Bill in their own form in another place.

Mrs. Chalker: This has been a short debate but there are some comments that I wish to make in response to the hon. Members for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) and Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), who have formed an interesting liaison. I have some sympathy with the hon. Member for Newham, South when he refers to the 1933 Act, but I think that he will find on further study —I am not being critical—that many of the things for which he is asking under general duties are contained in other clauses and in slightly different ways. That has helped us to introduce an up-to-date Bill that is in line with other more recent pieces of legislation.
6.45 pm
As I have said, I will consider amendment (a) to amendment No. 4 with a view to writing into the changed clause 3(3) something that is suitable to take account of clause 2(3). That might be done in another place if the House so decides.
It would be easy to be sidetracked by the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape). He may have bored us many times, but I assure him that he will never bore me by talking about improved safety standards—a subject to which I am entirely committed. The hon. Gentleman must stop putting about the bogy that an operator who provides a service under a clause 3(1) agreement with London Regional Transport will provide a less safe service than London Transport's bus or underground division. The general duties are overriding and, as I said in Committee, the standards should be no less in the private sector. All the drivers employed by a private operator will be required to have public service vehicle licences. The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East left me with the impression, no doubt inadvertently, that they might not have PSV licences.
London Regional Transport will enter into a clause 3(2) agreement with Snapey Transport Ltd., for example, when that operator can provide a more cost-effective service than that which London Transport can provide. I believe — and I understand that my belief is shared by the Board of London Transport — that greater efficiency could be achieved. Perhaps the spur to that greater efficiency is the provision of a service by a private operator under a clause 3(2) agreement for London Regional Transport. I hope that the House will accept amendment No. 4 and allow me to consider again amendment (a).

Mr. Spearing: Does the Minister agree that while it would be incumbent upon Snapey Transport Ltd. or any other transport undertaking——

Mr. Snape: Such as Chalkey Coaches Ltd.

Mr. Spearing: —to employ drivers with public service vehicle licences, the important features of London Transport's training school include a system of supervision and spot checks — a psychological network which extends throughout its services? Surely the Minister will agree that that system should be found comprehensively within all operators, whether they be subsidiaries or contractors.

Mrs. Chalker: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the assumed psychological effect of there being one named company and one standard of operation would be marvellous if it were true in reality. The hon. Gentleman knows from his many long years of questioning the operations of London Transport's bus division that this philosophy does not always apply within the organisation. However, I agree that that philosophy should be extended and required of a clause 3(2) operator who is under contract to LRT to provide a service. The most important thing is to provide a better standard of service to the passenger in London. I am convinced that clause 3(2) agreements will put that need in the forefront of the provider's mind. I hope that the House will accept amendment No. 4 and that the hon. Member for Newham, South will not press amendment (a) to a Division.

Amendment agreed to.

Mrs. Chalker: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 3, line 23, leave out from 'fares' to 'other' in line 25 and insert
'in respect of any such services and their routes and frequency of operation and over charges in respect of any'.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 8 and 9.

Mrs. Chalker: These amendments deal with two related points, both of which result from Opposition amendments in Committee. If the House so wishes, I shall discuss them in detail, but I do not think that there is much to add to what I said in Committee. Therefore, I shall wait to hear the Opposition's comments.

Mr. Prescott: I do not wish to detain the House. The amendment is an amended version of an Opposition amendment moved in Committee, which the Minister was generous enough to accept in principle. Perhaps she will tell us why she is amending something that in Committee she found satisfactory. I accept that she said in Committee that she was not wholly satisfied with the wording of the amendment, and that may be why she has tabled these amendments.
I notice that the reference to location of routes has been deleted. I am not sure about the difference between "location of routes" and "structure of routes". Lawyers make a great deal about different words. I assume that "location" means route 77 or route 88, and that there is no holding to a particular location. Why has the Minister deleted the word "location", which is quite important in the generality of words used about structure?
In Committee we pressed the Minister to say whether she had reached a firm decision on whether the agreements should be properly monitored. An agreement can be arrived at between LRT and another body. Such agreements may not necessarily be public, although some people may wish to monitor them to ensure that they are being fully carried out. Has the Minister given any further thought to what she said about that in Committee? It is an important point when there is general concern that such agreements may lead to cuts in services and routes. Such agreements should be publicly available for examination.

Mr. Spearing: Once again, the efficiency and necessity of Report stage comes to the fore. I understand that there was considerable discussion in the upstairs club about this matter——

Mrs. Chalker: Club?

Mr. Spearing: After many days and nights of debate, those acquainted with the Bill and the discussions about it are in a good position to speak on Report.
The amendments are important, and may not go far enough. Since the founding of the London General Omnibus company and its money-making activities, adjustment to routes—in location, extent and frequency of service—has been the key to successful operation. A London bus manager said to me, "I have made London Transport million of pounds by looking at the arithmetic." If, under the Bill, an area is allocated to a subsidiary or a contractor, it is for the operator to decide where the routes should run, the frequency of the service, the times of the first early morning bus and the last bus at night, how many buses should run on a Sunday, and so on. That is crucial because a few changes in services could mean the difference between profit and loss and the difference between a subsidy and no subsidy.
If an operator was told to run a quarter-hourly service on Sunday from 9 am to 9 pm, the economic requirements of that route would be different from where there was no Sunday service. Similarly, the late evening services and the degree to which a service is run clockface or every 15 minutes or less are fundamental features of bus operation.
Whether a bus continues for only an additional 200 yd, or whether two routes are merged for economy of operation — that is why so many London bus routes appear to wander everywhere — is fundamental to the service provided for the public. It appears that the detailed discussions on these matters will no longer take place at 55 Broadway, but — the Minister may wish to correct any misapprehension—will be at the discretion of the operator. If that is not so, why does the amendment refer
the general structure of routes of such services"?
The word "general" is, ironically, included as a qualification. The amendment also uses the phrase
general level of provision to be made with respect to their frequency".
Not only is the general level important; the particular level is also.
When the Minister replies, perhaps she will tell us the degree to which there will be an option or discretion available to the subsidiary or contractor for changing the routes and frequency. How much co-operation will there be between the contractors and local government? As any London Member knows, where the buses go is a matter for discussion between the local London borough council, the London Transport passenger committee, the informal committees that have operated over many years and, sometimes, the residents' associations and the owners of municipal and private facilities.
Until now, the structure has been clear. There has been consultation with borough councils and with 55 Broadway. If there are to be subsidiaries and contractors, they should be bound by similar procedures. I hope that the amendments do not illustrate any loosening of those arrangements. They do not always work perfectly, but at least we know who is responsible. If the future structure is not as tight as it should be, I hope that the other place will examine this important matter.
People who cannot easily get around — those to whom even the location of a bus stop or the withdrawal of a route is important to their daily life — will be dependent upon the legal interpretation of these

amendments and clauses. There must be no lesser obligation on public service operators than there is currently on London Transport.

Mrs. Chalker: I wish to say a few appropriate words in response to the debate. In Committee I said that I agreed with the intention of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) in amendment No. 60. I said:
LRT will need to adopt some strategic control over service levels and routes and there is some advantage in giving it that control as a statutory duty … I shall be happy to make that amendment on Report.—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 7 February 1984; c. 313.]
In amendment No. 5 we have rearranged the wording of clause 3(3)(c), but not to change its substance. Clause 3(3) describes the various matters that may be provided for in agreements between LRT and another bus operator under clause 3(2). The wording in clause 3(3)(c) incorporated the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East, which added references to service frequencies and location of routes.
This is a drafting amendment which counsel believes will improve the present wording. A route must have a location as that is the definition of a route. I see no need to repeat that. The amendment does not change the substance of the clause or the meaning intended by the hon. Gentleman.
7 pm
Amendment No. 8 adds to clause 8 a requirement on LRT to determine the general structure of routes and level of frequency for the whole range of services, whether operated by LRT, its subsidiaries or independent operators, as allowed under clause 3(2) agreements. To some extent, that measure complements at a general level amendment No. 5. As I said before, I agreed that LRT should have a statutory duty to determine such matters in addition to the general level and structure of fares and charges for which clause 8 already provides.
The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) asked me about monitoring. The LRT, in ensuring that the contract between LRT and an independent operator under a clause 3(2) agreement was fulfilled, would need to monitor it. Undoubtedly, matters of commercial interest are involved in monitoring the contract, but I see no reason why we cannot devise some measures so that at least the provisions of the contract are made known publicly. I shall look into that matter.
LRT will make decisions on routes under the clause 3(2) agreements. Clause 29 provides for discussions with the London boroughs. I realise that there are problems, as the hon. Member for Newham, South said, in deciding where a bus stop is sited—for instance, further up a hill because elderly people live at the top of that hill. Occasionally, it is important that extra distances are added to routes for passengers' benefit. The clause 3(2) agreement aims to provide a better service for passengers. The purpose of the amendment is simply to tidy up the wording and bring it into line with the general wording of the Bill. The measure does not go against anything that we decided in Committee. The hon. Gentleman need have no fears. I hope that the House will accept each of the three amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 5, line 13 leave out subsection (4).
I do not propose to push the amendment to a vote, but it raises an issue that we discussed in Committee. I believe that the Minister appreciates the amendment's objective. Subsection (4) provides for some guidance about the formation of companies, in pursuance of clause 4, to provide bus or underground rail transport services in London. If the Bill is passed, London Regional Transport will be set up as the overall authority. It will have the power to set up a bus and then an underground rail operation. Under subsection (3), those bodies will be public companies under the Companies Act 1948.
The disadvantage of subsection (4), which the amendment seeks to delete, is the problem of the definition of "objects". Under the Companies Act, the objectives of companies can be enormously wide and general. The definition under subsection (4) is that the objects
shall be such as appear to London Regional Transport to be necessary or appropriate in view of the purpose for which that company is established".
I hope the Department will accept that we need a statement of a company's objectives in meeting the duties that the Bill and its predecessors set on that company.
LRT has a duty, as we have already said, under clause 2 to meet certain objectives to ensure that, for the time being, London's transport needs are met. Within that overall framework, I contend that the two companies to be set up should aim to meet those objectives. Those objectives should be incorporated in the statute that set them up, not left entirely to LRT's discretion.
Subsections (3) and (4), by creating companies under the Companies Act for the bus and underground rail operations in London, clearly admit the possibility that one day shares in those companies could be sold. That option will become available. Of course, the Minister will say, "That is not our intention," but she must accept that that is a possibility. A company under the Companies Act, limited by shares and registered under the 1948 Act, can be sold if the Government decide to do so. If the shareholder—the Government—decides to get rid of its shares, the company will be put on the market. It is, therefore, vital to provide against that eventuality and prevent the opportunity of any privatisation of the bus and underground companies as they exist on the date of handover. Their objects should be written into statute and not just be left to be decided from time to time by LRT.
I believe that the Department understands the amendment's objective. I should be grateful if the Minister would reveal whether the amendment is acceptable and whether later there will be an accommodation of the aim of incorporating the objects of the two companies in their articles of association.

Mrs. Chalker: I thought that I had made it clear when we discussed our amendment in Standing Committee about subsidiaries of companies under the Companies Act that, in creating separate bus and underground subsidiaries within LRT, we would have exactly what the hon. Gentleman has been seeking — companies properly performing duties such as those we are requiring of LRT. By seeking to remove subsection (4), the hon. Gentleman will not achieve a specific change. I know that his amendment is a probing one, and that is why it is on the Amendment Paper.
I do not find any measure in subsection (4) especially offensive. It provides for LRT to determine the appropriate

objectives for its subsidiaries. I have already given an undertaking, which I repeat, that LRT will determine appropriate objectives for the subsidiaries which are in line with its objectives. It is not, therefore, necessary to write that measure into the Bill. The objectives of a company, which are written out in its memorandum and articles, under the Companies Act, give the company powers. We cannot put duties into those objectives written into the memorandum and articles, and I believe that the hon. Gentleman understands that point.
This measure covers the two companies—LRT bus and LRT underground — which are to be LRT's subsidiaries. They cannot be anything but under the control of LRT, so the first part of subsection (4) is a reasonable requirement and the second part is simply a matter of sensible administration.
The hon. Gentleman is anxious that we should include words in the clause to ensure that the two separate companies act responsibly in line with the duty imposed on LRT. I see no need for any additional words to be written into the clause, because the hon. Gentleman's aim is the understanding on which we have been working and it is the way in which subsidiary companies would be required to work. The objectives under the memorandum and articles of association would simply give them the power to operate in that way.
I made the matter clear to the hon. Gentleman in Committee. However, if he was not satisfied with what I told him in that long debate, I am not sure that these few remarks will make the matter clear. But we are not at odds. The Bill covers the point that he is making and I see no need for further amendments. If the hon. Gentleman can explain to me why he thinks that there should be an amendment I will look at the matter again, but I do not see from what he has said tonight or previously that the creation of separate subsidiaries, with separately identifiable costs and revenues, is anything but good commercial practice and a reflection of what LT has already done in treating the bus and tube services as separate businesses. All that LT has not done is to make them into Companies Act companies.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the potential for selling off. It is a very, very, very remote possibility that that would happen, but I have to agree that, although it may be unlikely, it is possible. However, as long as the companies remain subsidiaries of LRT, which is what the Bill provides, they will be well provided for. If there is a change, it will involve the memorandum and articles of the company and conditions could be imposed on the sale. However, I cannot see that happening and I do not think that there is any need to write an amendment into the Bill. In any case, the amendment does not achieve the objective sought by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I said earlier that I did not intend to press the amendment to a vote. I listened carefully to the Minister and I hope that the "very, very, very remote possibility" becomes an impossibility and that privatisation will be ruled out.
The two operations — bus and underground —obviously need to be run separately. There is no objection to that. However, it is always safer — perhaps, as a relatively new hon. Member, I am naturally sceptical—to have things written down so that we know what will happen in future, rather than to sign a blank cheque for the Government. That was the objective behind the


amendment. The Minister has said that she will listen to further arguments, and perhaps I can take up that offer without detaining the House tonight.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 8

CO-ORDINATION OF CHARGES UNDER CONTROL OF LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT

Amendments made: No. 8, in page 8, line 30, after Act;' insert—
'( ) the general structure of routes of such services and the general level of provision to be made with respect to their frequency of operation;'.

No. 9, in page 8, line 32, leave out 'so provided' and insert
'provided as mentioned in paragraph (a) above'. — [Mrs. Chalker.]

Mr. Simon Hughes: I beg to move amendment No.10, in page 8, line 33, leave out clauses 9, 10 and 11.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): With this, we may take the following amendments:
No. 55, in clause 9, page 8, line 44, after '(1)(a)', insert 'and (b)'.
No. 56, in clause 10, page 10, line 4, leave out subsection (4).

Mr. Hughes: I shall not take the same conciliatory attitude in moving this amendment, which would delete a substantial and important part of the Bill. Clauses 9 to 11 come under the heading "Powers of disposal" and the key words are at the start of clause 10:
The Secretary of State may give directions to London Regional Transport requiring them to exercise their powers under section 9 of this Act
—the power to dispose of
the whole or any part of the undertaking of any of their subsidiaries
and the right hon. Gentleman may also give directions to LRT requiring it to exercise its powers under clause 3, which sets out the agreements that relate to other companies, routes and so on. The only constraint on the Secretary of State is that he shall consult LRT and, in certain cases, the local authorities for which any proposal to dispose will mean substantial changes in their public transport system.
7.15 pm
The enormous power that clauses 9 to 11 gives the Secretary of State is set out in clause 10(4), which shows that LRT cannot bark back, because the subsection says, as bold as brass:
It shall be the duty of London Regional Transport to give effect to any directions given to them by the Secretary of State under this section notwithstanding any of their other duties under this Act.
Although LRT has been set up to look after London and its transport needs, the duties in clause 2, which we have debated at length, efficiency, economy, safety, the needs of pensioners and the disabled and the varying needs of the outlying districts and the inner city can all be disregarded. All that it needs is a decision from the Secretary of State, a formal process of consultation—the Secretary of State does not have to take account of anything that is said to him — and a direction. Then he can instruct LRT,

"Dispose of this part of your operations. Get rid of it. From now on, it will be run by an independent company. The public transport sector wilt not run that operation."
Over the years, public transport in London has expanded as technology has advanced. We have moved from trams and overgrounds to the building of the underground and its extension to join other traffic routes, such as Heathrow airport. We have done that with less public subsidy than is given to the transport system of any comparable city in western Europe, let alone any where else.
One reason why London Transport has so often been criticised is that insufficient money has been put in and insufficient capital has been provided for investment to keep transport going in our city and to make life for our people reasonable and satisfactory.
A Select Committee looked at the needs of London Transport because of the disastrous state of transport in the capital, which has been improved by a sensible fares structure and other actions by those responsible for it in the past few years. However, transport in the capital will be improved fundamentally only if the Government realise that they have a responsibility not only to Londoners, but to the rest of the nation, to make sure that London's transport system works well.
Clauses 9 to 11 give a power of disposal to the Secretary of State in a Government whom we know believe in privatisation and say so at every turn — they have already handed over to private enterprise British Telecom and North sea oilfields — and they are a signal that disposal may occur sooner rather than later. Of course, the Secretary of State will say that it may not and that there are no plans at the moment to do that. However, the greatest assurance that the House can give to the passengers of today and tomorrow is that there will be a public transport system, providing bus, underground and rail transport in a co-ordinated and increasingly integrated way, and that it will not be left to cut-throat competition that will oversubscribe the best routes and leave the less satisfactory routes with no one to run them.
I have lived for some while in the inner south-east part of London, which the Secretary of State and the Minister of State admitted in Committee is a poor relation in transport terms. It does not have a good service from London Transport, and there is an enormous danger that things will get worse for such areas. For many Londoners, public transport is their only transport. They need guarantees that public transport will be cheap, efficient and economical and that it will answer their needs. That can be guaranteed only if it is run in an integrated way by people who are in some way accountable to them.
Under this legislation, the thread of accountability will be thin enough. The private operators will not be accountable. There will be no guarantees, and the people will be badly served. The clauses should be deleted. This is a matter of principle to which the House should respond positively in the interests of the consumer.

Mr. Snape: The clauses that would be struck out by amendment No. 10 are a disgrace. Under clause 10, the Secretary of State virtually appoints himself dictator in relation to the future of the assets of LRT. It is the most undemocratic clause that I have seen in the 10 years that I have spent in this House. As the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) has rightly


said, all that is necessary to dispose of any part of the capital's transport system is for the Secretary of State to instruct LRT to dispose of certain assets.
Clause 9 is profoundly undemocratic in that a non-elected quango could itself dispose of assets paid for by the London ratepayers and indeed by the nation's taxpayers, but the undemocratic nature of clause 9 is entirely and widely surpassed by the power of dictatorship in clause 10.
As the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey said, the Government have made no secret of their belief in the principle of privatisation. None of us on the Opposition Benches shares their views, and I suspect that some Conservative Members do not share them either. The Government make no secret of their views, and they are something that we have to live with during election campaigns, for example.
The Secretary of State needs clause 10 to assist him in his plundering of the nation's assets. That is appalling. It would be bad enough if the powers of disposal under the clause were restricted by an affirmative resolution on the Floor of the House. The Government would be able to assemble the collection of juvenile stockbrokers whom the nation so mistakenly elected in June 1983, who could trot through the Division Lobby, perhaps believing that they would be able to get their sticky fingers on the assets when they are disposed of on the private market. However, we shall not even have that safeguard. All that will be needed is an instruction from the Secretary of State.
There is something poignant about the fact that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey has moved an amendment to delete clause 9, which is the only clause to refer to employee share schemes. Such schemes are dear to the heart of the Liberal party. I nevertheless congratulate the hon. Gentleman on moving the amendment. He made a good speech. I am sorry that he did not make that speech when we discussed this matter in Committee. We discussed the matter at one o'clock in the morning, and the Liberal party does not operate at maximum efficiency after midnight. The hon. Member voted on the matter, but he did not make a speech. However, the speech he has just made was worth listening to.
I doubt whether the Secretary of State will give us a satisfactory reply. It would be strange if he were to create such a precedent at such a late stage in the passage of the Bill. If we receive from the Secretary of State one of the arm-flailing laconic replies to which we have regrettably become accustomed, I shall urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the amendment.

Mr. Spearing: The words "Powers of disposal" appear in italics before clauses 9 to 11. They are followed by two pages of close and, indeed, almost impenetrable prose devoted to giving powers to the Secretary of State and to LRT to dispose of assets. The three clauses are an asset-stripper's charter, and it is a disgrace that such a charter should be incorporated in the legislation. If I am wrong, or if I am exaggerating the position, I invite the Secretary of State to tell me why those clauses are included.
If the Secretary of State thinks that he has gone a bit far, I draw his attention to my amendments Nos. 55 and 56. Even if he resists the amendment moved by the hon.
Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), I hope that he will consider favourably amendments Nos. 55 and 56, either here or in another place.
Amendment No. 55 gives LRT a duty, when considering the disposal of
the whole or any part of the undertaking of any of their subsidiaries",
to obtain the consent of the Secretary of State. I have no doubt that the present Secretary of State will say "Aye, aye, aye" to any suggestion from LRT. After all, he is responsible for the Bill. However, the importance of the amendment lies in the responsibility of the Secretary of State to the House and, through the House, to the public. If at any time in the future I or any of my hon. Friends should wish to table a question asking the Secretary of State what assets LRT had disposed of in the previous year, the Secretary of State—or, indeed, an office not far from where you sit, Mr. Deputy Speaker—could say that under the Act that is not the responsibility of the Secretary of State, and that therefore the question may not be asked. We should therefore be unable to find out. The matter would be another official secret, and it is not inconceivable that some young lady at 55 Broadway might use a copying machine to her professional discredit.
If we add the words "subsection (1)(b)" in subsection (2), it will be necessary for LRT to obtain the permission or consent of the Secretary of State for the disposal of:
The whole or any part of the undertaking of any of their subsidiaries.
That would be a safeguard that does not exist at the moment. I see no reason why we should not have that safeguard.
7.30 pm
Amendment No. 56 proposes to leave out the most objectionable part of clause 10. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey has already read out part of clause 10 (4) but I should like to read it out in full so that its full enormity can sink in. It says:
It shall be the duty of London Regional Transport to give effect to any directions given to them by the Secretary of State under this section notwithstanding any of their other duties under this Act.
We all know that LRT's general powers are inadequately laid out and that even the weakest ones can be overridden by the Secretary of State at the drop of a hat with regard to the disposal of assets. The management can ask the Secretary of State to allow it to keep a garage, depot or piece of land because it wants to build offices due to expansion or because it wants to dispose of offices in one place and build them in another and the Secretary of State will be able to say, "No. Notwithstanding your wishes to retain that you must, for statutory reasons, get rid of it." The House is being invited to give him that power.
Whatever might have been said in Committee, it is the Secretary of State's duty to say why such power is required. We might be able to understand the request for the power if he were Secretary of State for Defence but, even in that case, there is a good deal of lively and proper controversy. Is this elective dictatorship? He has an obligation to defend clause 10(4). I support what has been said about the enormity of clauses 9, 10 and 11, and challenge the Secretary of State to say why clause 10 (4) should remain part of the Bill.

Mr. Ridley: I am amused that the amendment No. 10 has been tabled by the Liberals. We have had none of this from the Labour party, and it never occurred to me that


the Liberal party was the last defender of the public sector. The Liberals have stolen a march on the Labour party, which accepts, by and large, that it is reasonable for the Government to privatise parts of London Transport as and when we see fit. The Labour party did not raise clause 11 in Committee. It is one of the major clauses of the Bill, but we had not a word on it. We had a little perfunctory debate on clauses 9 and 10, in which the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) demonstrated his rhetorical and amusing skills, but they went through quickly. Suddenly, at this last moment, the Liberal party comes along defending nationalisation with strong words such as "enormous powers".

Mr. Stephen Ross: The right hon. Gentleman admitted in Committee that this was a nationalisation Bill which provided powers that exceeded Herbert Morrison's, so what is he saying now?

Mr. Ridley: That I am trying to make it a little better. The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East called clause 10 most undemocratic, and the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) described it as an asset stripper's charter.
The simple objective is that the Government should be able to take legal powers to privatise parts of a nationalised industry. How else did we ever privatise anything except by presenting a Bill to the House to give us powers to sell to the public various bits or the whole of nationalised industries. We took powers in the Transport Act 1981 to privatise parts of British Rail and we took powers in the Transport Act 1982 to privatise bits of the National Bus Company. Why, therefore, should we not take powers in what will be the London Regional Transport Act 1984 to privatise London's regional transport?

Mr. Simon Hughes: The answer to the Secretary of State's question is that we should judge issues on their merits. There is no merit in making London Transport a fairground for the private operator when we need a coordinated development of the present system, which is getting better and needs to be improved rather than dismantled.

Mr. Ridley: That is not what the hon. Gentleman said. He said that these were enormous and unjustified powers. Granted that we differ in that the Government wish to take those powers, I do not see what is enormous or unjustified in putting them into a Bill and asking the House to approve them, as that is the only way which we can take such powers. There is nothing exceptional or unusual about that. We are taking powers because we will want them if we want to privatise parts of London Transport.

Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way and I do not want to do him an injustice. Privatisation for maintaining operations is one thing, but does he agree that clauses 9, 10 and 11 could also apply to the disposal of the operation of public transport, which is utterly different, and that that is the greatest danger?

Mr. Ridley: We should consider the possibilities. My hon. Friend the Minister said in Committee —I have also said it—that we do not intend to use the powers to create a major erosion of London Transport as we know it. If we were blessed with the extreme good fortune of parts of London Transport being profitable, it is conceivable that we might be able to return large parts of it to the private sector. That would be nothing but good.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) must not make the elementary mistake of equating public transport with public ownership. There is no reason why public transport should not be privately owned. Indeed, it would probably be much better if it were. His insistence that because it is called public transport it must be in public ownership is completely outwith his normal perspicacity. I agree with him about providing a service for Londoners and the need to maintain the network although some parts of it are uneconomic. There is no chance of returning it to the private sector, hut there will be parts or bits of London Transport which might be better in the private sector.
Clause 3 enables LRT to get private contractors to do a job more cheaply. There might be a paucity of routes in south-east London and it might be better for London Transport to let the private sector provide transport in that part of London in the cheapest and best way. We are much more likely to get a decent service if the private sector is allowed to get on with the job than if we rely on nationalised industry, which we all know can let us down. I make no apology for asking for the powers. I apologise only to my hon. Friends that it might not be easy to find many candidates to make use of them.
The hon. Member for Newham, South asked two questions in regard to two amendments. They go in opposite directions as, having castigated me as the arch privatiser and villain of all times, he was desperately keen that London Transport should require my consent before selling anything. On his definition, he would hardly have to bother, as I will be bound to give such consent. Given his strange view of me, I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman did not suggest that LRT should not have to ask me about selling anything. It will be helpful for him to know that there are precedents in all Acts concerning nationalised industries to the effect that the consent of the Secretary of State does not have to be obtained to sell part of one of their subsidiary's undertakings. That is modelled on British Rail's power in section 1(1)(b) of the Transport Act 1981.
The hon. Member for Newham, South asked about the power in section 10(4), which provides that a direction from the Secretary of State would overrule LRT's duty. We must have that power. If we intend to require LRT to dispose of an asset, we cannot have LRT able to plead that that would interfere with performing its duty under clause 2 and, therefore, give rise to legal and other disputes about whether it was possible to do so. It is right for Parliament to take the power to require industries, which are owned by taxpayers and managed by the Government, to do what the Government want them to do. There can be no question of having that obfuscated by any conflict about the true position. I am proud to advocate that. The Government wish to be able to tell LRT to dispose of an asset if we think that that would be right. I do not want anything to stand in the way.

Mr. Snape: When we asked the Secretary of State whether he could instruct LRT to operate services in the way that Londoners require and to instruct LRT about the level of the fares, why did he say that those matters were entirely the responsibility of management? What is wrong with management when it comes to flogging off public assets?

Mr. Ridley: The difference is that management manages the assets, which taxpayers have invested in


LRT, while the owners of the assets are represented by the Government, who can decide what to do with the assets under their control. The Bill takes powers for the use of the Government's assets.
This is a slightly amusing but mischievous debate to have so late in the day. I am sure that the House will want warmly to endorse the Government's proposals.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 129, Noes 238.

Division No. 236]
[7.41 pm


AYES


Alton, David
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Ashdown, Paddy
John, Brynmor


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Kennedy, Charles


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Barron, Kevin
Leighton, Ronald


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Beith, A. J.
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Bell, Stuart
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Bermingham, Gerald
McGuire, Michael


Blair, Anthony
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
McKelvey, William


Boyes, Roland
Maclennan, Robert


Bray, Dr Jeremy
McNamara, Kevin


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
McTaggart, Robert


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
McWilliam, John


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
Martin, Michael


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Maxton, John


Buchan, Norman
Maynard, Miss Joan


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Michie, William


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Mikardo, Ian


Canavan, Dennis
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Clarke, Thomas
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Clay, Robert
Nellist, David


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Cohen, Harry
Parry, Robert


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Patchett, Terry


Corbett, Robin
Pavitt, Laurie


Craigen, J. M.
Pendry, Tom


Crowther, Stan
Pike, Peter


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Prescott, John


Dalyell, Tam
Randall, Stuart


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Richardson, Ms Jo


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Robertson, George


Deakins, Eric
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Dewar, Donald
Robinson, P. (Belfast E)


Dixon, Donald
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Dobson, Frank
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Dormand, Jack
Sedgemore, Brian


Dubs, Alfred
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Duffy, A. E. P.
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Ellis, Raymond
Skinner, Dennis


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)


Ewing, Harry
Snape, Peter


Fatchett, Derek
Spearing, Nigel


Fisher, Mark
Steel, Rt Hon David


Flannery, Martin
Stott, Roger


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Thomas, Dr R, (Carmarthen)


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Godman, Dr Norman
Tinn, James


Golding, John
Torney, Tom


Gould, Bryan
Wainwright, R.


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Hamilton, W. W, (Central Fife)
Wareing, Robert


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Weetch, Ken


Haynes, Frank
Welsh, Michael


Heffer, Eric S.
Wigley, Dafydd


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Hoyle, Douglas
Winnick, David


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Woodall, Alec





Wrigglesworth, Ian
Mr. Michael Meadowcroft and



Mr. Archy Kirkwood.


Tellers for the Ayes:





NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Glyn, Dr Alan


Alexander, Richard
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Amess, David
Goodlad, Alastair


Ancram, Michael
Gower, Sir Raymond


Arnold, Tom
Gregory, Conal


Ashby, David
Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Grist, Ian


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Grylls, Michael


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Gummer, John Selwyn


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Baldry, Anthony
Hanley, Jeremy


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Hannam, John


Batiste, Spencer
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Hayes, J.


Bellingham, Henry
Hayward, Robert


Bendall, Vivian
Henderson, Barry


Benyon, William
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Berry, Sir Anthony
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Best, Keith
Holt, Richard


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Howard, Michael


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Braine, Sir Bernard
Key, Robert


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
King, Rt Hon Tom


Bright, Graham
Lang, Ian


Brinton, Tim
Latham, Michael


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Lawler, Geoffrey


Brooke, Hon Peter
Lester, Jim


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)


Browne, John
Lightbown, David


Bruinvels, Peter
Lloyd, Ian (Havant)


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)


Budgen, Nick
Lord, Michael


Bulmer, Esmond
Luce, Richard


Butcher, John
Lyell, Nicholas


Butterfill, John
McCrindle, Robert


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Macfarlane, Neil


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
MacGregor, John


Carttiss, Michael
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Maclean, David John


Chapman, Sydney
McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
McQuarrie, Albert


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Madel, David


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Major, John


Cockeram, Eric
Malins, Humfrey


Colvin, Michael
Malone, Gerald


Conway, Derek
Maples, John


Coombs, Simon
Marlow, Antony


Cope, John
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Couchman, James
Mather, Carol


Crouch, David
Maude, Hon Francis


Dicks, Terry
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Dorrell, Stephen
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Mellor, David


Dover, Den
Merchant, Piers


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Dunn, Robert
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Durant, Tony
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Dykes, Hugh
Miscampbell, Norman


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Moate, Roger


Emery, Sir Peter
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Evennett, David
Monro, Sir Hector


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Montgomery, Fergus


Fallon, Michael
Moore, John


Farr, John
Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Forman, Nigel
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)
Moynihan, Hon C.


Franks, Cecil
Neubert, Michael


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Newton, Tony


Fry, Peter
Nicholls, Patrick


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Nicholson, J.






Norris, Steven
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Onslow, Cranley
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Oppenheim, Philip
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Ottaway, Richard
Stewart, Ian (N Hertf"dshire)


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Stokes, John


Parris, Matthew
Stradling Thomas, J.


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Sumberg, David


Pawsey, James
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Powell, William (Corby)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Powley, John
Terlezki, Stefan


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Price, Sir David
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Proctor, K. Harvey
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Raffan, Keith
Thornton, Malcolm


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Thurnham, Peter


Rathbone, Tim
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Renton, Tim
Tracey, Richard


Rhodes James, Robert
Twinn, Dr Ian


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Rifkind, Malcolm
Waddington, David


Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Roe, Mrs Marion
Walden, George


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Waller, Gary


Rost, Peter
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Rowe, Andrew
Watson, John


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Watts, John


Ryder, Richard
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Sayeed, Jonathan
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Wheeler, John


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Whitfield, John


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Whitney, Raymond


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Wiggin, Jerry


Shersby, Michael
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Silvester, Fred
Winterton, Nicholas


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Wolfson, Mark


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Wood, Timothy


Spencer, Derek
Woodcock, Michael


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Yeo, Tim


Squire, Robin
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Stanbrook, Ivor



Stanley, John
Tellers for the Noes:


Stern, Michael
Mr. Archie Hamilton and


Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Mr. Tim Sainsbury.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 13

CONTRIBUTION FROM LONDON RATEPAYERS TO EXPENDITURE ON GRANTS UNDER SECTION 12

Mr. Ridley: I beg to move amendment No. 11, in page 11, line 44, leave out from 'order' to end of line 2 on page 12.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 12.

Mr. Ridley: This amendment makes an affirmative resolution in accordance with the pledge that I gave in Committee. I hope that the House will accept it.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 12, in page 12, line 7, leave out 'subsection (8) above' and insert 'this section'.

Clause 14

PROVISIONS SUPPLEMENTARY TO SECTION 13

Amendments made: No. 13, in page 13, line 5, end insert
'and any such rules shall have effect, in their application by virtue of this section, with any further modifications necessary in consequence of this section.'.

No. 14, in page 13, line 6, leave out 'so applied' and insert 'applied by this section'.

Clause 21

CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL COMMITMENTS OF SUBSIDIARIES

Amendments made: No. 15, in page 19, line 5, leave out from 'not' to 'any' in line 7 and insert—
'(a) except with the consent of the Secretary of Slate, lend money to or give any guarantee for the benefit of'.

No. 16, in page 19, line 9, at end insert
';or
(b) except with the consent of the Secretary of State and the approval of the Treasury, borrow money from any such person.'.

Clause 22

LIMIT ON FINANCIAL COMMITMENTS OF LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT GROUP

Mr. Simon Hughes: I beg to move amendment No. 17, in page 19, line 21, leave out '£100 million' and insert '£250 million'.
When we debated this matter in Committee the Secretary of State rightly said that there is at present a project to extend the Piccadilly line to terminal 4 at Heathrow, and he said that that would be a profitable venture for which LRT would have to borrow. That project might cost between £60 million and £70 million. In addition, there is a margin for contingencies should additional short-term borrowing be needed if, for example, there were a long strike. A further £20 million to £30 million is allowed for that, and the total is £100 million. That is a large sum. Although the Piccadilly line extension might use £70 million of that, there is no provision at this stage in the Bill for another substantial sum to be aquired by borrowing for another project. We can all think of substantial capital investment projects that could be undertaken to improve London Transport.
The Department of Transport generally accepts the need to extend transport provision in the south-east of the city, where there is almost no underground system. It was proposed that the Jubilee line should be extended far to the east of where the docklands light railway is proposed to go, adjacent to the Isle of Dogs and crossing the river several time before it reached Thamesmead. We must also consider whether the docklands light railway should be extended to the south of the river, and there are other substantial investments for which a far-sighted London Regional Transport, like a far-sighted London Transport, could plan.
It seems highly sensible to say that, since London Transport is contemplating major public expenditure, we should provide at this stage for the Government, through LRT, to have that borrowing power. The alternative would be for the Government to return to the House each time the facility had to be increased, perhaps to £150 million, then to £175 million and then to £200 million. We should; grant LRT permission to borrow so that the foreseeable capital needs which are clearly identified — a phenomenal amount of needs are still unmet in London — can be planned for and the money provided. This amendment would allow that proposition to be contemplated now and the financial provision to be made.

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) knows from our debates in Committee that the Government intend that the vast majority of London Transport's investments will be met by 100 per cent. capital grants. Its investments in the underground railway and in buses are unlikely to be profitable. Therefore, there is no point in requiring LRT to borrow. That would simply add to a growing capital debt which, in the end, would fall on the ratepayers.
However, the Government have decided to isolate those investments made by London Transport which will either be profitable or, if they are not profitable, should not be made—property development is one example—or other activities where it is carrying out activities extraneous to the provision of passenger transport. We shall also isolate investments, such as the extension of the Piccadilly line to terminal 4, which might be profitable. We have provided this £100 million borrowing power, which can be increased by order, for financing matters of that sort.
8 pm
The point at issue is the limit of the first tranche that can be increased by order. I say £100 million, and the hon. Gentleman says £250 million. After all the lectures from the hon. Gentleman about the need to be accountable to the House and giving it the opportunity to debate at length all that happens in London Transport, he now offers me a prize which, were it not for my democratic instincts, I might even have grabbed by accepting the amendment. It would mean that the Government would not have to come to the House nearly so frequently to renew the borrowing power by order or later by primary legislation when the ultimate limit is reached.
I think that the £100 million will last for a good few years. It can then be increased if the House makes an order to that effect. If the limit were £250 million, I doubt whether the Government would have to come back to the House for decades. Parliament has always been jealous of its opportunities to control the borrowing of the nationalised industries, and I should not like to defraud it of any opportunity that might occur earlier.
Indeed, the only regular statutory opportunity for the House to debate the affairs of a nationalised industry—unless it does so on a Supply Day or in a debate on a Select Committee report — is when the Government come forward with a borrowing order or a new borrowing powers Bill. Therefore, the custom has been to set the limits rather lower so that the Government must occasionally come back to the House.
If the hon. Gentleman wishes me to forgo that pleasure, there is a temptation to accept his amendment, but I am sure that the rest of the House would prefer to leave the limit at such a level that we would have to come back in a few years rather than for many years to come. In those circumstances, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press his amendment.

Mr. Prescott: In view of the Secretary of State's outrageous remarks, I should like to make a few comments. He now talks of democracy and accountability, having just voted down the proposed London Transport Money Bill which would have given the House an annual opportunity to discuss what was happening with the money. The right hon. Gentleman's defence is that as the limit is £100 million the House will have the opportunity

to debate the matter once that limit is exceeded. The Secretary of State must ask himself whether his arguments are consistent.
I do, however, have some sympathy with the nationalised industries when faced with these borrowing requirements. Inevitably, when such requirements are imposed upon the nationalised industries, their interest payments have become crippling. A good example is the borrowing requirements from the Treasury vis-a-vis the National Bus Company, which has to pay those interest charges as public dividends in competition with private companies which have not had the same stringent financial requirements placed on them.
When the right hon. Gentleman talks of lines, routes or services that are profitable or non-profitable, it takes us back to the horrible arguments that we used when discussing the Cooper formulae in relation to British Rail, when we differentiated between inner cities and so on. I understand that the Victoria line was justified on the ground of social costing. In other words, a judgment was made that what the community saved by way of congestion, accidents and so on should be put into the computer. I understand that the Glazier model has demonstrated that every £1 investment can give £1·25 return if all the savings to the community are taken into account.
I gather that the Secretary of State is not happy with that conclusion. I do not know whether he pulled out the plug, but modern economists take account of social costings in their assessments. I only hope that that modern way of looking at transport will commend itself to the Secretary of State, but I doubt whether social costings are an important consideration when he determines whether or not something is profitable.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 33

ANNUAL REPORT

Mr. John Hannam: I beg to move amendment No. 52, in page 28, line 10, at end insert—
'( ) include a statement of any action taken during that year by London Regional Transport and any subsidiaries of theirs in relation to, or for the purpose of securing, provision for disabled persons in the public passenger transport services and facilities provided for Greater London (whether by London Regional Transport or any subsidiary of theirs or by any other person);'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): With this we may take amendment No. 61, in page 28, line 18, at end insert—
'(d) provide individual and consolidated statistics relating to all modes of public passenger transport operated by or on behalf of London Regional Transport in respect of this Act, together with all personnel, property and equipment, in no less detail and in such a manner as to be comparable with those published by the predecessor authority.'

Mr. Hannam: This amendment is the result of extensive discussions between the all-party disablement group and representatives of various organisations connected with the transport of disabled people in London. I first say a special thank you to the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation for its help in drafting the amendment, as well as to Peter Large and the Joint Committee on Mobility who put forward various ideas during the Committee stage.
Under clause 33, LRT is required to make a report to the Secretary of State accounting for its functions during that year. The amendment will ensure that LRT includes in its report a statement of any action it or any of its subsidiaries has taken to provide for the transport needs of disabled people either during that year or in the future. It would go a long way towards reassuring the disabled— those who live in London and those who visit—that serious consideration will be given to the provision of transport that suits their special needs.
Although the Government have done much to ensure that LRT will take account of the needs of the disabled, there is still anxiety that the Bill contains no specific commitment to ensure that their needs are not set aside or overlooked. The amendment does not cut across any of the Government's intentions or objectives. Indeed, through the provision that the Secretary of State will have to place a copy of the report before Parliament, we shall be guaranteed the opportunity to debate the provisions that are made for the disabled. My hon. Friend the Minister of State is fully committed to this cause. I therefore hope that she will recognise that the amendment will be of value in her efforts on behalf of the handicapped.
Let me briefly mention some of the representations that I have received as secretary of the all-party disablement group. We held a meeting only last month to discuss transport for the disabled and were told of some of the problems faced by disabled travellers. For example, we heard of the difficulties experienced by blind people when travelling on the underground or on buses. Frequently, there is no oral announcement when a station or bus stop is reached. We were told that most underground trains are fitted with a tannoy system that is rarely used, even though blind people are totally dependent on that kind of oral information.
Conversely, deaf people are totally dependent on visual information. At our meeting, the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) spoke of the difficulty for deaf people changing trains in the middle of a journey, particularly as all British Rail announcements are made over the tannoy. All that is required is a blackboard message on platforms indicating train changes.
In many instances great improvements can be made to our transport system for very little additional cost. For example, the partially sighted would be vastly assisted if a strong white line were painted on the edge of steps leading to a train or bus. Arthritic people or others who have difficulty walking would be helped if sturdy hand rails were installed on buses, and deaf people would be helped by more visual signs.
Many improvements have taken place, especially since the International Year of the Disabled Person. There is a growing awareness of some of the transport needs of the disabled. However, we must not let it stop there. There is still a great need to produce a coherent transport policy for people with disabilities, both in London and across the country.
So far I have spoken only of disabled people who are able to use public transport, but many more are unable to use any form of public transport because of their disability. Only too frequently, the only service that those people can use is a door-to-door service, often by a vehicle that can accommodate a wheel chair. Such a service is provided in many areas, not least in London, by the dial-a-ride system.
I do not wish to go into the pros and cons of that service, but the principle of such a service is most important,

because it can enable those who are effectively housebound through their disabilities to get out and about. A recent survey has shown that 80 per cent. of trips were of less than 5 miles, and that the vast majority of them are to carry out normal everyday activities such as shopping.

Mr. Tony Banks: The advantages of dial-a-ride schemes are well known, and what the hon. Gentleman said is correct, but is he aware that the 12 or so dial-a-ride schemes now being operated in London would be at some risk were the GLC to be abolished? Therefore, what representations is he making to his colleagues on that matter?

Mr. Hannam: I shall not be drawn into the hon. Gentleman's point about the abolition of the GLC. I am sure that dial-a-ride services will continue to be provided in London and elsewhere. I am sure that the Government will do all they can to assist in the provision of such services, because it has been accepted in principle by the Minister that the dial-a-ride scheme is worth while and should be continued. It is not a service that we can ignore. Great improvements have been made in the accessibility of services to disabled people. We are slowly but surely providing them with opportunities to lead full and fulfilling lives. Therefore, it would be ironic if they could not travel in order to make use of these opportunities because there was no public service accommodating their needs.
I have read the Committee proceedings in the Official Report and I know that the Committee spent a considerable time discussing the needs of disabled people. I have seen the contributions made by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, and I know the contribution that she has made in general to the transport needs of disabled people. I do not doubt for one moment that she is genuine and wholehearted in that commitment, and I know from personal experience of working with her that she will carry it out. However, I recommend the amendment to the House as one which will help to ensure that the commitment is carried out not only by this Government but by other Ministers and other Governments, not least in respect of London Regional Transport.
We are, after all, talking of providing a transport service to the public, and in doing so we must provide a service to those members of the public who are disabled. Disabled people have special needs, and special efforts must be made to satisfy those needs. A report is being submitted to the Secretary of State suggesting that there should be a statement of the public services available to the disabled. Many people would say that the services do not go far enough, but I believe that they will be seen to go much further than most people imagine.
Similar amendments were made to what is now the Wildlife and Countryside Act, and the Countryside Commission has a duty to make an annual report to the Secretary of State on matters relating to disabled people. The National Heritage Bill was amended in another place to place such duties on the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England. There was a welcome amendment in another place to the Telecommunications Bill which goes even further, setting up an advisory body for disabled people.
In setting up a board to deal with the public transport of London, we cannot ignore the very special and great transport needs of disabled people. I place on record my


desire to see those needs given high priority under London Regional Transport. Disabled people, almost more than anyone else, depend on public transport, so I hope that we shall do all we can to ensure that it is accessible to them.

Mr. Spearing: I endorse in general the remarks of the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) and hope that the Minister will accept his amendment. Clause 33 relates to the annual report of London Regional Transport, and the hon. Gentleman's amendment would add an obligation to report on facilities for disabled people. My amendment No. 61 has been coupled with the hon. Gentleman's amendment.
One of the interesting aspects of the existing London Transport system has been the continuous series of annual reports published by that body and by its predecessors from 1933 onwards. At the end of most of those reports —and, I am glad to say, generally in increasing detail —there has been set out not only the general financial operation required under the various Companies Acts but detailed statistics relating to transport matters. For each mode—bus, tube and, formerly, trolleybus and tram— statistics were set out together with numbers of personnel, numbers of passengers carried, average takings per passenger mile, average costs per passenger mile, contributions to the overheads at 55 Broadway, numbers of vehicles employed, numbers purchased, numbers disposed of, and so on. Anyone reading those statistics could get a very good idea of some of the economics of the operation. I must admit to having perused them to some benefit over the past 30 years or so — and sometimes to the discomfort of people at 55 Broadway.
The importance of the figures is twofold: first, they tell us how the operation is going and, secondly, they provide an invaluable tool to the understanding of how public transport in London has been working over that period. Of course, the reports do not cover all the statistics for public transport, which would have to include British Rail and, indeed, taxicabs, but it is a very good basis. It would be wrong if the successor authority did not maintain an equally comprehensive range of statistics. The statutory responsibility of London Regional Transport, particularly in respect of the rail network, goes beyond the present responsibility of the London Transport Executive. Let there be some additional statistics. But I hope that the operations, which have been run historically by London Transport, will be illustrated by exactly comparable statistics in no less detail.
The Minister of State may say that the transport system will not always be run by LRT — there will be subsidiaries, and sales to private operators and so on. We have just debated them. That may be so, but I hope that part of the conditions, either of disposal or of contract, will be to make returns so that the comprehensive picture can be maintained. I have just realised that the title of the Bill is grossly inadequate, and what is purported or claimed by the Government to be the purposes of the Bill could not be fulfilled.
The Minister of State may say that the inclusion of a statutory provision requiring such statistics is not necessary, in which case I hope that she will give an undertaking to make it a requirement upon the Secretary of State—he certainly has enough powers to do so—

because unless the statistical detail is maintained in at least a comparable form we shall not know how public transport in London is progressing, we shall not be able to follow the trends, and we shall not be able to follow the financial twists and turns, which clearly will accelerate. Above all, we should not be able to assess the way in which the LRT is fulfilling its statutory duties and the extent to which the Secretary of State for Transport will be doing the same to the House and to the people of London.

Mr. Simon Hughes: It would perhaps have been wiser to wait for the Minister to respond. All hon. Members respect the view put forward by the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) on behalf of the many people who are disabled, and who have clearly made their views known to many hon. Members, particularly during the stages of this Bill. They find that the present transport system in London gives, often much more than those who are completely sighted and not handicapped, them neither the mobility nor the freedom that they need.
On the days that we have had lobbies here on behalf of the disabled groups, they have been addressed by the Secretary of State, by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) and by others who have met them. The all-party disablement group has met them and listened to their needs. It is clear that although the Minister said in Committee that she will make it her responsibility to ensure that one member of the LRT board will have a particular interest, although not exclusive responsibility, for the needs of the disabled, their needs would best be met if they could be monitored year by year so that the House, and the public, could see what had been achieved and decide what still needed to be donè.
There are three groups in our community about which we have been particularly concerned as the Bill has gone through its stages. The largest group are the pensioners, and we have already had debates about that. The second largest group of particular significance is that made up of the handicapped and the disabled. For them, public transport should be a lifeline, and even though it needs considerable planning and expenditure, if the public transport system will not provide that lifeline, nobody else will. It is vital that we take this opportunity to do what, as the hon. Member for Exeter said, has been done with other legislation— ensure that we respond to the call from the disabled that the needs for which the public sector provides are met through the legislation that we make.
The third group are the young. Again the Minister responded positively by saying that she recognised that they have particular transport needs, have a voice and wish to be heard. It is important that the disabled can be sure that we have taken on board their strong appeal to us.
For me, and I suspect that it was the same for the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East, one of the most depressing moments since the Bill was introduced came when we went with the Secretary of State to a meeting in a Committee Room at which he addressed disabled people. I am sad to say—none of us would wish to say this— that it appeared then that he did not understand the difficulties and problems that so many have in getting on and off buses and tubes, with there not being enough space for wheelchairs, in having access to the system and in being able to be users of the public transport system. I hope that that was a false impression, and I hope that that


experience has chastened the Secretary of State, as much as he needed to be, to make sure that he will respond positively.
I hope, too, that the Minister can give some positive reassurance. Her first step should be to respond to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Exeter on behalf of all parties by saying that the Government will accept it, and do their duty to the disabled. The Government must provide for the disabled more than has been provided in the past, and they must see what we are doing.

Sir Hugh Rossi: I strongly support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam). During the two years when I had the privilege to serve the disabled as a Minister, I became deeply aware of their problems in integrating and participating in ordinary everyday life, and of how transport was so fundamental to their not becoming prisoners of their environment, within the four walls of their homes. Contrary to what the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said, I found the greatest goodwill in the Department of Transport, a realisation of this problem and the desire to do whatever is within its power, and that of Ministers, to help to resolve the problems of disabled people.
I urge my hon. Friend the Minister, although I am sure that she does not require much urging on this matter, because I know her views as we worked closely together in the Department of Health and Social Security, to accept the amendment. However, the disabled desire not to be treated as separate from the rest of society, for example through special provisions for their transport made through the social services. My constituents have told me that they are tired of special handouts and special provisions. They want the transport authorities to bear in mind their needs when they are running their services and to make provision within those services so that the disabled can use them as ordinary members of the public.
My hon. Friend the Member for Exeter was right to draw attention to such small matters as intelligible tannoy systems that blind people can hear and understand on station platforms, and provision for notices so that the deaf can see where they are going. Such small matters require only a little forethought by planners in the authority, but can make a world of difference to those suffering from disabilities and who need a little extra help to use the ordinary facilities that the rest of us can enjoy.
I hope that this is the direction in which we shall go, and I hope that the LRT board will make it part of its responsibility to ensure that there is provision so that the disabled can regularly use, without difficulty, the services provided for the community as a whole.

Mrs. Chalker: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) for moving the amendment. I welcome it and urge the House to accept it. No hon. Member can be in any doubt that I have always believed that transport provision for the disabled is among the most important ways in which we can help them. My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) gave so much to them when he was Minister with responsibility for the disabled. He was right to say that careful thought is needed when providing for them, but they also wish to be provided for in line with able-bodied

people where that is practicable. While that may not always be practicable, we should do all that we can to achieve that aim.
During the passage of the Bill, as at all other times, I have consulted a large number of representatives of disabled people, including my own advisory panel, on the transport of disabled persons. I have been very appreciative of the understanding that they have given me. Naturally I had a good deal of understanding about this from the outset, having made my maiden speech in the House on the subject.
8.30 pm
There are many comments that I could make, but I know that time is short. However, there are a few matters that I should outline.
I have believed for a long time that to impose a statutory duty would not be practicable and appropriate in all cases, but I have always wished to see public transport made accessible where it reasonably could be. The matters that my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter mentioned as illustrations, including visual displays to help the deaf and verbal announcements to assist the blind and partially sighted, are all matters on which research is going on and which we are seeking to support through the Transport and Road Research Laboratory.
We are seeking already in the Department to give support, and what I said in Committee and at all meetings about these issues was that I believed that LRT should have clear instructions to work towards the same end— access to the same transport systems as used by everyone else wherever possible. LRT will have clear instructions to work towards the development of its own vehicles and infrastructure with the needs of the disabled fully in mind.
Mention was made of special services, such as dial-a-ride schemes for some severely disabled people who are unable to use conventional public transport. I shall comment further on them in a moment. I am certain that we must make flexible provision because there is a wide variety of disablement for which we wish to provide mobility.
Some right hon. and hon. Members know already that we have been carrying out research and development in the Department, and from this we now have the possibility of a new generation of London taxis which will be able to make a major contribution to the carriage of many disabled people wishing to make use of them. These vehicles will provide a truly door-to-door service in the way that even the most accessible bus cannot hope to achieve, although that door-to-door service may not be necessary for everyone.
I do not pretend that there are unlimited resources for funding all that we would like to do—I believe that we have to be cost-conscious and remember the need for cost- effectiveness and value for money in providing the system —but we want to expand the services so that they are solidly based financially and conceptually to continue and, where possible, extend the provision of transport for disabled people.

Mr. Martin Stevens: Will the London Regional Transport Board be able to make available to local branches of dial-a-ride, "handicab", and the rest, advice on how to operate their schemes in the most efficient way, because that would be welcomed?

Mrs. Chalker: If my hon. Friend will bear with me for a moment, I shall be coming to the need for advice.
While the responsibility for funding special services remains with local boroughs, there are ways in which we can help. I wish LRT to work closely with the specialist services and also to make sure that through its contacts not only with the Department but with the London Regional Passenger Committee and other representatives of the disabled they have as much information as they need. I made it clear in Committee that one member of the London Regional Transport Board would be required to provide a focal point for the interests of the disabled, but that I should expect all members of the board to take an active interest. I shall also ensure that at least one member of the LRPC is specifically there to represent the needs of the disabled, and I hope that there will be more.
There is real concern among disabled people that assurances might not be carried into action. That is why I was delighted to see my hon. Friend's amendment, which I can accept, because that will require the LRT annual report to contain a statement of what it has done to improve services for the disabled—the very thing that LRT, with its provision of public transport, can do to help disabled people to enjoy the transport that the rest of us take so much for granted. I want it also to include what it has done to help those responsible for funding the special services as well as the improvement of its own services. I think that that partially meets the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Stevens). That will be a useful way of focusing the attention of LRT at the highest levels on the continuing need year by year to make progress to bring additional mobility to the disabled.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter for moving his amendment, because it has allowed these matters to come back to the attention of the House.
Whilst I am discussing the need for the provision of mobility for the disabled, I take the opportunity to remind the House of a development which I announced last week and which I believe will make a major contribution to ensuring that the special services in London are sensibly and properly developed in future. These are the services for those who might not be able to enjoy public transport even as it is improved for the disabled in the years ahead.
My Department is funding the setting up and running of a London section of the national advisory unit for community transport for a period initially of three years. The grant will cover 100 per cent. of the capital and running costs of that organisation and, I hope, will go a long way to giving the sort of advice so often sought by dial-a-ride schemes and others seeking to provide mobility for disabled people who cannot benefit from public transport.
The national advisory unit has been in action for more than two years. It was set up and funded with the support of my Department, and it is well known and respected in other parts of the country. It provides a national source of expertise and advice on a wide range of community transport, including schemes for the elderly and for the disabled. Above all, it has achieved a major success in providing the most effective services within the resources available. It has the experience of some 70 dial-a-ride schemes round the country and many more at the planning and development stage. The advice of the unit is already in great demand.
I have thought for some time that London needed closer and more concentrated help of this kind over the next few

years of transition and development. That is why I have asked the NAU to set up a special section to help take this forward. It will be starting work in the course of this summer, and I hope that it will make a significant impact on the London scene within a very few months.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) mentioned the meeting in the House a few weeks ago. I was very sorry to miss it. Unfortunately, I had influenza at the time.

Mr. Prescott: I bet the Secretary of State wished the hon. Lady could have been there.

Mrs. Chalker: At that meeting, a number of the people present were rather unhappy at the way that it was conducted by the Federation of Dial-a-Ride, and the Joint Committee for the Mobility of the Disabled and others have written saying that they do not believe the rather rowdy meeting and the tactics operated during it were representative of disabled people as a whole.
I believe that most disabled people recognise that there are limits to what can be done, however willing and determined a Minister may be about the provision to be made. I believe that it is right that we are going ahead in a sensible and organised manner to help the dial-a-ride schemes, which is what the London branch of the national advisory unit will do.

Dr. Alan Glyn: Will my hon. Friend confirm that she is trying to get the LRT to do as much as is physically and financially possible to help the categories of disabled people whom she mentioned?

Mrs. Chalker: Indeed, I am certainly seeking to do as my hon. Friend said.
The hon. Member for Kingston ùpon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) seems to think that this is a waste of time. I believe that the mobility of the disabled is most important. In Committee I expressed clearly my determination to provide for that.

Mr. Prescott: Window dressing.

Mrs. Chalker: There is no such thing in my book on this score as window dressing. The hon. Gentleman would do well to withdraw his remark.

Mr. Tony Banks: Will the Minister clarify a point? It is all very well to offer advice on facilities for the disabled and the efficient use of the dial-a-ride scheme, but will she also provide the resources? In the final analysis it is resources that the Minister needs to guarantee, not advice. Advice usually comes a lot cheaper than resources.

Mrs. Chalker: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern about this matter. That is why I said earlier that the provision of such services should be through the local authority. I have already undertaken to discuss this with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment because I am deeply concerned about the way in which money is already being spent. It should be spent to the best possible effect for the mobility of the disabled. The hon. Gentleman will take a different line from me on many things, but I am determined to see a better provision of mobility for the disabled, whether it be through local authorities or LRT.
The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) has been waiting patiently for me to deal with amendment No. 61. He asked for more information in the annual report. He will know that that matter was raised in


Committee. As I told the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East, there will be the maximum statistical and performance information in LRT's reports, but I do not think that it is necessary to spell that out in statute. I undertake to tell the LRT chairman and board that such information is required in the annual report. I hope that that will meet at least the spirit of amendment No. 61, which I advise my hon. Friends not to support if the hon. Gentleman presses it to a Divsion.
Whatever the mutterings that we have heard during the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter has done the House a service by moving this amendment. I hope that the House will receive it with acclamation.

Mr. Alfred Morris: It would be churlish not to express some pleasure at the Government's acceptance of amendment No. 52. I understand from my Front Bench colleagues, to whose labours on the Bill I pay warm tribute, that concessions by the Government have been rare. For their part, they have made a number of extremely important propositions which, if accepted, would much have helped disabled people. Any concession is welcome, but this is not an occasion for self-congratulation by the Government since, as the Minister knows full well, much more was hoped for from the Bill by disabled people and their organisations.
The clause is a lineal descendant of one that we enacted in section 22 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. We included in that Act the request for an annual report on action taken by Departments of State to improve the outdoor mobility of the disabled, not for the purpose merely of reporting progress, but to excite progress in improving that mobility. Section 22 has led to much practical progress over the years. Yet there has not been as much progress as we looked for in 1970 and there is much more to do, both in London and throughout the country.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) on winning approval for his amendment, but feel sure he will agree that it is only a small consolation prize when considered against what many disabled people are still actively seeking in terms of improved mobility. When we talk about the disabled in the context of public transport, we must think not only of people who are unable to walk, but of those who are unable to see or to hear, among many other kinds of disabled people. As the hon. Gentleman said, while many people can walk, they are still severely handicapped as to outdoor mobility. In particular, we must not ignore the claims of people who are blind or deaf and I am glad that was emphasised in more than one speech tonight.
8.45 pm
Many disabled people wanted much more from the Bill than they have so far been offered. Their concern is not just for concessionary passes or even dial-a-ride, taxi-card or accessible buses and trains. They need a complete and integrated public transport system that will take into account the transport needs of people with disabilities along with those of all other passengers.
When the Minister speaks about integration, she must be challenged to match precept with practice. All hon. Members know that there are considerable unmet claims among disabled people, and this debate provides a brief opportunity for the House to consider them tonight. I hope

that the Government will be more receptive to those claims in the other place than they have been in the House of Commons.
Recently, I heard a Conservative Member say to disabled people that the main hope for strengthening the Bill in the interests of disabled people lay with the House of Lords, not with the House of Commons. That was a disturbing statement for any hon. Member to have made. Yet we must hope that as the Bill is in need of further improvement, in the view of disabled people, there will be serious efforts in another place to effect some of the amendments that have been unsuccessfully pressed on the Government.
We are talking here of well in excess of half a million people in the capital city who are disabled in one way or another. The disabled are not a tiny minority and they are fully entitled to the time of this House for the fullest possible consideration of their claims. If disabled people are to be a part of society, and not apart from society, talk about integration must be matched with purposeful action. Much more action is necessary than the Government are prepared to take. While we welcome the clause, I hope that the Government will be more responsive to amendments in another place than they have been in the House of Commons in the proceedings on the Bill so far.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 35

PROVISION FOR ADDITIONAL FUNCTIONS OF LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT AS TO RAILWAY SERVICES

Mrs. Chalker: I beg to move amendment No. 18, in page 29, line 34, after 'made', insert—

'(a) under subsection (1) above specifying a day for the application of sections 36 and 37 of this Act or revoking a previous order under that subsection specifying such a day; or
(b) confirming any order under that subsection'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 19.

Mrs. Chalker: This amendment makes it clear that an order under clause 35 bringing part II of the Bill into force will require the approval of both Houses under the affirmative resolution procedure. The amendment also provides for the affirmative resolution procedure for an order to revoke an earlier order and return to the present position. That was an undertaken given in Committee, which the Government are honouring at this point.

Amendment agreed to

Amendment made: No. 19, in page 29, line 37, after 'above', insert
'varying a previous order under that subsection'.—[Mrs. Chalker.]

Clause 39

THE LONDON REGIONAL PASSENGERS' COMMITTEE

Mr. Simon Hughes: I beg to move amendment No. 21, in page 33, line 24, leave out 'subject to subsection (6) below'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 22, in page 34, line 7, leave out subsection (6).

Mr. Hughes: We here enter on that part of the Bill which deals with the representation of and the participation by the consumer in the affairs of LRT. Although there are provisions, which start at clause 39, about how passengers will be consulted and although there is one definite improvement in that there will be one body, the London Regional Passenger Committee, which in relation to public transport in London will replace the present two bodies, one with a responsibility in relation to British Rail and the other with a responsibility in relation to London Transport, there is a fundamental flaw in the procedure to which the amendment seeks to draw attention and which the amendment, if accepted, would begin to put right.
The fundamental flaw is that if the Bill is unamended there will be no consumer voice at the table where the decisions are made. There will be nominees, and no one but nominees, of the Secretary of State for Transport of the day, all appointed by him, and at his entire discretion. There will be no opportunity for the consumer to participate in the decisions that will affect 7 million residents of London, let alone those from outer London, from outside London and from abroad who use LRT.
The amendment seeks to limit the amount of subject matter that will be taken out of the competence of the consumer body set up under the Bill. By virtue of clause 39(6) there will be an area of discussion in which the consumer body will not be able to participate. Already it does not have a voice at the table, and already it is being told that it will not be able to discuss certain matters, such as the most fundamental fares. The fares structure, and the fundamental questions that affect most consumers regarding how much they will have to pay for the service, will be outside its remit.
We have tabled some amendments, which have been accepted, and for that I am grateful. One has to be grateful for small crumbs from the table. However, the majority of the amendments have been rejected, some of which would give the consumer a better voice. It cannot be right that, by clause 39(6), the consumer will not be allowed to consider the charges to be made for any service or facility or any question relating to

"(a) the discontinuance by London Regional Transport or any subsidary of theirs of all railway passenger services from any station or on any line on their railways; or
(b) the discontinuance or reductions of railway services provided by the Railways Board or any subsidiary of theirs."
That means that when there is a proposal to close a part of the railway network, this body — the strongest consumer body that we will have, and the only counterweight to the Department and its appointees— will not have a say on something as substantial as whether the railway line—a part of public passenger transport provision—continues. If the Government were to make this one concession they would show that they are serious and that they accept that the professional, respectable and experienced consumer bodies are very unhappy.
As part of the briefing that all members of the Committee received, the National Consumer Council wrote to us and asked us to urge upon the Government improvements on behalf of the consumer. The two local consumer bodies for passenger transport in London made the same sort of approach to members of the Committee. They were obviously waiting to hear what the Minister said. It is interesting to observe that, as a result of all her fine words and kind responses, they hit the nail on the head when they said in a subsequent comment:

Mrs. Chalker, the Minister of State, is very good at giving the impression that she is giving more away than she actually has … there are some matters which it would clearly be appropriate for us to come back to in the Lords.
In a debate on an earlier amendment, the House heard about the disabled and the minority view on the Conservative Benches that, if something is sent to the House of Lords, they might take the matter seriously and say to the Government, "We are not letting you get away with this." There might be a sufficient number of Back Benchers in the House of Lords to say that the case has merit and that the least that can be done, if the consumer is to be excluded from decision-making, is to make sure that the consumer is properly consulted on everything regularly, and not in a cursory and casual way which allows the consumer view to be dismissed by a Secretary of State. The Government might give a token of their good faith by saying, "We accept that point. The provisions that we have laid down do not go anywhere near meeting the all-party Select Committee recommendation that there should be a consumer voice. They fall enormously short of that, and we are prepared to make yet another concession along the road to hearing the consumer's view of what London Transport should be doing."
We are told by the Secretary of State that it is to be a nationalised industry. If nationalised industries are to be anything, they should be at the service of the public. At present, they are unlikely to be that. Indeed, LRT is unlikely to be that, because it will not even be in a position to hear adequately, regularly and consistently what the public want. That is not acceptable, it is disgraceful, and the amendment, if accepted, would allow some redemption of the Government Benches before it is too late.

Mrs. Chalker: I think that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) has forgotten everything that I said in Committee. I suggest that he reads it again.
Clause 39(6) in the Bill as published excludes certain questions of responsibility from LRPC so that its remit is comparable to that of the CTCC and the area transport users consultative committees—the TUCCs. Since the Bill was published, we have made two moves in the direction of these amendments. I have said that we accept that there is a role for the consumer bodies in relation to the structure and relativities of fares, and that the Government intend to deal with the matter if and when a suitable legislative opportunity arises. However, the hon. Gentleman accepted in Committee that it could not be done for London alone, and that it needed to be done for the whole country. That is why it does not arise on this Bill. Meanwhile, in advance of such legislation, British Rail will consult the CTCC and the London Regional Passengers committee about fares and charges on an informal basis. I am sure that LRT will do the same in relation to the LRPC. I cannot commit it because it has not yet been appointed, but I have every intention of asking it to do so. I see no reason why it should not do what BR already intends to do.
An amendment to the clause was agreed in Committee which would enable the LRPC to consider reductions in services provided by LRT or its subsidiaries. In the case of BR services, informal consultation has always taken place, and will continue to do so. In the case of proposals by LRT or BR to withdraw rail passenger services, the role of the LRPC will be exactly the same as the role that the


area transport users consultative committee now has in relation to proposals affecting British Rail's passenger services. I can see no justification for making the position in the London area different from that elsewhere in the country.
I have already said that we shall move on this matter. The hon. Gentleman knows that he is pushing at an open door in this respect. It is a question of doing it in the most orderly and sensible way to achieve a reasonable balance in the amount of discussion, deliberation and progress that needs to be made in the provision of transport for people in London. I hope that he will not press the amendment.

Mr. Snape: I shall be very brief. If the LRPC is to be largely as concerned as LRT with such matters as the level of the provision of services, fare increases, and so on, it would seem to be common sense to give the committee as wide a remit as possible. To prevent it from discussing such issues as railway closures — whether they are proposed by BR or LRT — is unduly restrictive and makes one wonder why the Government are so terrified.
The Minister talks about things being orderly. I did not think that she approved of countries where people went around saying that society must be orderly. However, railway closures frequently lead to people being somewhat disorderly. If the amendment were accepted, there would at least be an opportunity for such important matters to be debated before the committee. We are obviously grateful to the Minister for having widened the scope of the debate, but the amendment does not ask a great deal of her. Her refusal to accept it seems unduly restrictive and somewhat illogical.

9 pm

Mr. Simon Hughes: The one hope that we had was that the promise of jam tomorrow would be converted by the Minister into, "We shall do something." However, she has said only what the Secretary of State and the Minister said in Committee—that one day the Government will do something about the situation. For the consumer, one day is not soon enough. I do not wish to detain the House, but I feel strongly enough to press the amendment to a Division on behalf of the consumer, because he will otherwise be excluded. He will feel deserted by us if we do not make that noise on his behalf tonight. I hope that the Government will respond in the other place by doing something about it sooner rather than later.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 145, Noes 235.

Division No. 237]
[9 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)


Alton, David
Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)


Ashdown, Paddy
Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Buchan, Norman


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Campbell, Ian


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Barron, Kevin
Canavan, Dennis


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Carter-Jones, Lewis


Bell, Stuart
Clarke, Thomas


Benn, Tony
Clay, Robert


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)


Bermingham, Gerald
Cohen, Harry


Bidwell, Sydney
Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Cook, Frank (Stockton North)


Boyes, Roland
Corbett, Robin


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Cowans, Harry





Craigen, J. M.
McWilliam, John


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Marek, Dr John


Dalyell, Tam
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Martin, Michael


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Maxton, John


Deakins, Eric
Maynard, Miss Joan


Dewar, Donald
Michie, William


Dixon, Donald
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Dobson, Frank
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Dubs, Alfred
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Nellist, David


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Eastham, Ken
O'Brien, William


Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)
O'Neill, Martin


Ellis, Raymond
Parry, Robert


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Patchett, Terry


Ewing, Harry
Pavitt, Laurie


Fatchett, Derek
Pendry, Tom


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Penhaligon, David


Fisher, Mark
Pike, Peter


Flannery, Martin
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Prescott, John


Foster, Derek
Randall, Stuart


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Richardson, Ms Jo


Garrett, W. E.
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


George, Bruce
Robertson, George


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Godman, Dr Norman
Robinson, P. (Belfast E)


Golding, John
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Gould, Bryan
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Sedgemore, Brian


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Haynes, Frank
Skinner, Dennis


Heffer, Eric S.
Snape, Peter


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Spearing, Nigel


Howells, Geraint
Steel, Rt Hon David


Hoyle, Douglas
Stott, Roger


Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Strang, Gavin


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Thomas, Dr R, (Carmarthen)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


John, Brynmor
Tinn, James


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Torney, Tom


Kennedy, Charles
Wainwright, R.


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Kirkwood, Archibald
Wareing, Robert


Leadbitter, Ted
Weetch, Ken


Leighton, Ronald
White, James


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Wigley, Dafydd


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Winnick, David


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Woodall, Alec


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Wrigglesworth, Ian


McGuire, Michael



McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Tellers for the Ayes:


McKelvey, William
Mr. A. J. Beith and


McNamara, Kevin
Mr. Michael Meadowcroft.


McTaggart, Robert





NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)


Alexander, Richard
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)


Amess, David
Boyson, Dr Rhodes


Ancram, Michael
Braine, Sir Bernard


Arnold, Tom
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Ashby, David
Bright, Graham


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Brinton, Tim


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Brittan, Rt Hon Leon


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Brooke, Hon Peter


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Bruinvels, Peter


Baldry, Anthony
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Budgen, Nick


Batiste, Spencer
Bulmer, Esmond


Bellingham, Henry
Butcher, John


Bendall, Vivian
Butterfill, John


Benyon, William
Carlisle, John (N Luton)


Berry, Sir Anthony
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Carttiss, Michael


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Chalker, Mrs Lynda






Chapman, Sydney
Malone, Gerald


Churchill, W. S.
Maples, John


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Marland, Paul


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Marlow, Antony


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Cockeram, Eric
Mather, Carol


Colvin, Michael
Maude, Hon Francis


Conway, Derek
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Coombs, Simon
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Cope, John
Mellor, David


Couchman, James
Merchant, Piers


Crouch, David
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Dicks, Terry
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Dorrell, Stephen
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Miscampbell, Norman


Dover, Den
Moate, Roger


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Dunn, Robert
Monro, Sir Hector


Durant, Tony
Montgomery, Fergus


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Moore, John


Evennett, David
Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Fallon, Michael
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Farr, John
Moynihan, Hon C.


Fookes, Miss Janet
Newton, Tony


Forman, Nigel
Nicholls, Patrick


Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)
Nicholson, J.


Fox, Marcus
Onslow, Cranley


Franks, Cecil
Oppenheim, Philip


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Ottaway, Richard


Fry, Peter
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Glyn, Dr Alan
Parris, Matthew


Goodlad, Alastair
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Gower, Sir Raymond
Pawsey, James


Gregory, Conal
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)
Powell, William (Corby)


Grist, Ian
Powley, John


Grylls, Michael
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Gummer, John Selwyn
Price, Sir David


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Proctor, K. Harvey


Hanley, Jeremy
Raffan, Keith


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Hayes, J.
Rathbone, Tim


Hayward, Robert
Renton, Tim


Henderson, Barry
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Rifkind, Malcolm


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Hirst, Michael
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Holt, Richard
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Howard, Michael
Rost, Peter


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Rowe, Andrew


Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Ryder, Richard


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Jackson, Robert
Sayeed, Jonathan


Key, Robert
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


King, Rt Hon Tom
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Lamont, Norman
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lang, Ian
Shersby, Michael


Latham, Michael
Silvester, Fred


Lawler, Geoffrey
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lester, Jim
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Speed, Keith


Lightbown, David
Spencer, Derek


Lloyd, Ian (Havant)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Squire, Robin


Lord, Michael
Stanbrook, Ivor


Luce, Richard
Stanley, John


Lyell, Nicholas
Stern, Michael


McCrindle, Robert
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Macfarlane, Neil
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


MacGregor, John
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Maclean, David John
Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)


McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Stokes, John


McQuarrie, Albert
Stradling Thomas, J.


Madel, David
Sumberg, David


Major, John
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Malins, Humfrey
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman





Temple-Morris, Peter
Watts, John


Terlezki, Stefan
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Thompson, Donald (Calder V)
Wheeler, John


Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)
Whitfield, John


Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)
Whitney, Raymond


Thornton, Malcolm
Wiggin, Jerry


Thurnham, Peter
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Winterton, Nicholas


Tracey, Richard
Wolfson, Mark


Twinn, Dr Ian
Wood, Timothy


van Straubenzee, Sir W.
Woodcock, Michael


Waddington, David
Yeo, Tim


Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Waldegrave, Hon William



Walden, George
Tellers for the Noes:


Waller, Gary
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and


Wardle, C. (Bexhill)
Mr. Michael Neubert.


Watson, John

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It may be for the convenience of the House if I put together the remaining Government amendments.

Clause 39

THE LONDON REGIONAL PASSENGERS' COMMITTEE

Amendment made: No 23, in page 34, line 34, at end insert—
'(8A) On reaching a decision with respect to matters dealt with in any recommendation received by them or him under subsection (7) above, London Regional Transport, the Railways Board or (as the case may be) the Secretary of State shall give notice in writing of that decision to the Passengers' Committee.' —[Mrs. Chalker.]

Clause 42

EXEMPTION OF LONDON BUS SERVICES UNDER CONTROL OF LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT FROM REQUIREMENT OF ROAD SERVICE LICENCE.

Amendments made: No. 25, in page 38, line 12, leave out 'any local authority', and insert 'the local authorities'.

No. 27, in page 38, line 26, at end insert 'and'.

No. 28, in page 38, line 30, leave out from 'London' to 'any' in line 33 and insert,
'and for the purposes of that subsection the local authorities affected are the Greater London Council and' — [Mrs. Chalker.]

Clause 46

COMPENSATION FOR LOSS OF EMPLOYMENT ETC.

Amendments made: No. 29, in page 42, line 41, leave out 'or'.

No. 30, in page 42, line 43, at end insert—
'or
(c) any preparatory steps taken (after the making of the scheme or order in question) for the purposes of any such transfer which does not in fact take place, or taken for the purposes of any action required by a direction under section 10 of this Act which ceases to be so required before the action is taken.'. — [Mrs. Chalker.]

Clause 48

TRAVEL CONCESSIONS ON JOURNEYS IN AND AROUND GREATER LONDON

Amendments made: No. 34, in page 47, line 25, at end insert 'and'.

No. 35, in page 47, line 27, leave out from '1981' to end of line 30 and insert—
'(9) In this section and sections (Reserve free travel scheme for London residents) (Supplementary provisions with respect to the free travel scheme) and (Requirements as to scope and uniformity of arrangements for travel concessions under section 48(1)) of this Act "travel concession" means the reduction or waiver of a fare or charge either absolutely or subject to terms, limitations or conditions. '.—[Mrs. Chalker.]

Clause 60

INITIAL MEMBERSHIP OF LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT

Amendment made: No. 36, in page 55, line 8, leave out from beginning to 'shall' in line 9 and insert 'London Regional Transport'.—[Mrs. Chalker.]

Schedule 1

CONSTITUTION AND PROCEEDINGS OF LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT

Amendments made: No. 37, in page 57, line 8, at beginning insert '(1)'.

No. 38, in page 57, line 12, at end insert—
'(2) The Secretary of State may, after consultation with the chairman of the Corporation, appoint a member of the Corporation to be deputy chairman of the Corporation.'. —[Mrs. Chalker.]

Schedule 2

OPERATING POWERS OF LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT

Amendment made: No. 39, in page 67, line 19, after 'Transport' insert—
'or of any subsidiary of theirs'.—[Mrs. Chalker.]

Schedule 5

TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS AND SAVINGS

Amendment made: No. 40, in page 83, line 14, leave out from 'the' to 'of in line 15 and insert
'references in sections 39(4)(b), (Reserve free travel scheme for London Residents) (3)(e) and Supplementary provisions with respect to the free travel scheme) (8)(b)'.—[Mrs. Chalker.]

Schedule 6

MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

Amendments made: No. 41, in page 86, line 38, at end insert
; but the duty to make byelaws under that section shall apply in relation to London Regional Transport as if any railway of any such subsidiary were a railway of theirs'.
No. 42, in page 87, line 8, at end insert—
'(4) If London Regional Transport cease to be a railway company within the meaning of that Act, section 35 shall nevertheless continue to apply to them as if they were such a railway company, so far as relates to the making of byelaws to apply as mentoned in sub-paragraph (2) above in relation to any subsidiary of theirs which is such a railway company. '.

No. 43, in page 88, line 10, leave out from 'for' to '(d)' in line 12 and insert

'the words inserted at the end of paragraph (c) by section 3(2) of the 1969 Act there shall be substituted the words "or.'

No. 44, in page 88, leave out lines 42 to 44 and insert—
'(a) the words "the London Transport Executive and" shall be omitted; and'.

No. 45, in page 88, line 46, leave out from 'words' to 'that' in line 47.

No. 46, in page 91, line 37, leave out from beginning to end of line 46.—[Mrs. Chalker.]

Schedule 7

ENACTMENTS REPEALED

Amendments made: No. 47, in page 97, line 47, at end insert—


'1970 c. 10
The Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970
In section 272(6) the words "the London Transport Executive and".'.

No. 98, line 42, column 3, leave out—
'Section 31(4)(a)'.—[Mrs. Chalker.]

Mr. Ridley: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
We have reached the end of our journey. It has not been a one-person operation. There has been a driver and a conductor, and I give my warm regards to my hon. Friend the Minister of State who has carried the burden of the debate.
This is a good Bill for London's travellers and ratepayers and for democracy. The British Rail and the London Transport systems will be examined together by the liaison committee, in which I intend to take a special interest in line with the Select Committee's recommendations. The Bill contains new powers to facilitate interchanges, to set up park-and-ride facilities and to look at transport in London as a whole. London Regional Transport will be more responsive and more innovative. It will push forward the work on travel cards, automatic ticketing and the removal of barriers. It will pay special attention to the needs of the old and the disabled.
We have set up a new, stronger, unitary passenger committee for LRT and BR. London Regional Transport will not be run politically. It will be run for the benefit of the passengers, not of the staff. The board will consist of professional managers, not political nominees. The board will not obstruct progress to reduce overmanning. It will not be used as a political pawn for extraneous reasons.
On 29 March I received a letter from an employee of London Transport, in which he said:
I am a train driver on London Transport working at Acton Town station. As you will be aware, yesterday we were all on strike in order to save jobs, stop cuts in services, etc. At least these were the reasons offered by the union and carried in the popular press. The real reason for the strike was to save the GLC and for no other reason at all.
As for the strike being well supported, as reported in the press, this is sheer rubbish. The reason the strike was well supported was because of the threat of losing one's union card which means no job or the union would not support a member if he got into trouble with LT. The unions were fully aware that had a ballot been taken over 90 per cent. of members would have been against the strike. Indeed, in my 10 years with London Transport I have never known a strike called to cause so much resentment as this one.
That is the truth of the way the GLC has run London Transport.
The Bill will provide a better run system for the ratepayer. We shall cut LRT's costs. There will be no spending on propaganda or political advertising. There will be no gimmicks, no "nuclear-free zone" or "Babies against the Bomb" for which the ratepayers must pay.
Already we can see many economies in London Transport's plan. There could be an increase in one-person operations worth £6 million per annum, but that measure is being blocked by the GLC. There could be savings in the underground and bus engineering spheres worth £15 million per annum. London Transport has identified many other examples of cost savings. The ratepayers would have been saved a further £25 million if fares had kept pace with the cost of living. The sum of £10 million will be saved by our system of off-peak concessionary fares while guaranteeing free transport for the elderly and the disabled.
The levy at 67 per cent. is less by a long shot than next year's 78 per cent. With the cost-cutting operations I have described, prospects for the ratepayers will be improved to a far greater extent than Opposition Members have been prepared to concede. London business ratepayers have never been consulted, although they pay two thirds of the rates. So much for the democracy of the GLC.
London Regional Transport will be a nationalised industry and will be run efficiently by managers. It is for politicians, democratically accountable, to set the objectives and settle the annual subsidy. I believe that it is better for Parliament to do that than for the GLC to do it. Parliament is elected too.
Two thirds of the money from the rates comes from those in the business sector, but they have never had a vote; there is no democracy for them in how much money is levied in rates. When did the GLC ever consult business ratepayers about how much it should spend on London Transport or anything else?
All Labour Members' arguments about democracy are sheer humbug. The ratepayers' interests have been ignored. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) started our debates in Committee by saying that we had to strike a balance between the interests of ratepayers and fare payers. He never mentioned ratepayers again in the 103 hours of debate that followed.
A letter from Mr. Colin Smith, published in The Spectator, said:
For the record, Mr. Livingstone took over by ousting Andrew McIntosh, his moderate Labour predecessor, in a palace coup 24 hours after the polls had closed in 1981. The economy of effort involved in this transfer of power is widely admired even now, but the proceedings had absolutely nothing to do with London voters having any say in who runs London.
There is the democracy to which the GLC pays lip service. It has packed the LT board with political nominees and made one of its employees the chairman of the so-called independent consumer body. In this great and important industry, we must separate politics from management.
On Thursday we debated the many forms of consultation. We can add to those my accountability in the House to hon. Members who wish to put their point of view. We have a Bill which offers far more democracy in the conduct of London's transport than the GLC has ever attained. This is a good Bill; it will be good for travellers, ratepayers and democracy.

Mr. Prescott: The Secretary of State's speech reflected his attitude to the Bill. It is an anti-democratic view. The Secretary of State tried to show, by quoting from The Spectator and from letters pulled out of a bag, that he believes that the Bill is a democratic advance. We believe that it is exactly the opposite.
We have considered various parts of the Bill in Committee and on Report and we believe that we have exposed the fallacy of the claim that the Bill is supposed to meet the needs of London's transport. The statutory obligation to meet those needs has been changed into a requirement that LRT should take due regard of the need to do so, and that is another example of the lessening of the duty to provide proper and adequate transport to meet the needs of Londoners.
The Bill will also prevent ratepayers from taking action through the courts, as in the Bromley case, if they disagree with the Secretary of State's judgment.
The Bill looks to privatisation of transport, financed from the public purse, to undermine the integration of London's public transport service. It centralises the provision of transport in London by direction from Whitehall, providing a bureaucracy in the name of nationalisation, with the Secretary of State becoming the dictator of the provision of services to meet London's needs—and that from a Secretary of State who, before becoming a Minister, built his reputation on doing everything possible to prove that Whitehall and its bureaucracy did not know best. Yet the first Bill that the right hon. Gentleman brings to the House as Secretary of State gives Whitehall the authority to determine how the needs of transport in London will be met. We believe that it will reduce services in the London area and reduce the facilities now available to Londoners.
The Secretary of State's press release of 4 April is headed,
A watertight guarantee for pensioners concessionary fares".
That is an example of the promises offered by the Secretary of State to Londoners. Under the present free pass service, pensioners can travel from 9.30 am for the rest of the day to any part of London on a free pass. What does the Tory concessionary pass amount to? Pensioners will no longer be able to travel between 4.30 pm and 6.30 pm. They will be able to travel from midnight to I am. That is to make up for the loss of the earlier two hours. Does any hon. Member believe that that will be an advantage to the pensioners of London? There is also the possibility of the pensioners being charged for the pass. That will be money out of the pocket of the pensioners, whether it is for a pass or for the provision of a free service. Pensioners will get considerably less than they do now, and there will be no guarantee that even that minimum service will be retained.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) brought in his Bill for disabled people, we heard from the Conservative party that that was not the right vehicle to do certain things for them. As the Minister of State is aware, the amendments that we moved in the Committee on this Bill were drawn up by the disabled themselves. We made that clear at the time, and the amendments had been discussed with the Minister of State and the Secretary of State. The reason why the Secretary of State was given an angry reception at the meeting with the disabled was nothing to do with the


rigging. The reason was that the disabled people were sadly disappointed and angry because the Government had led them to believe that they were sympathetic to their needs, but had voted against every one of their amendments. The disabled people had found the right Bill for the amendments, but the Government rejected them.
The Bill has one real intention, and that intention is to cut the cost to the Treasury and, one might argue, to the non-domestic payer. The Secretary of State refers to the non-domestic payer. We are only a small step away from the non-domestic payer being given two votes. That is what could happen as we move into the Tory form of local democracy.
The Consumers Association had thought that its minimal amendments would be accepted. However, the door was not as open as wide as had been thought. Consumers have not been given what they thought had been promised, which was a major advance in consumers' rights.
The Government are cutting the cost to the Treasury of the transport provision at the expense of a shift of the burden to the ratepayers who, as we have shown, will be paying more. Secondly, thousands of people will be made unemployed by the Secretary of State in the name of efficiency. There will be greater redundancy in the London transport system. Thirdly, high fares and cuts in the services, as we have seen in other areas where such policies have been pursued, will hit hardest those who depend on the public services. Women in particular are dependent upon public transport. It is women who tend not to have access to a private motor car.
The Bill will lead to the establishment of a minimum system which will meet the minimum needs of London. The Secretary of State talks about the Bill as an advance in democracy. That flies in the face of my understanding of that word. People of London will be denied the right to determine their local transport services. Everywhere else in the country transport is determined by local people, but that will not be so in London. For Londoners, there will be a debate in he House of Commons lasting one and a half hours about the level of rate support and of the services to be provided.
The Secretary of State is replacing democracy with a quango of people appointed by himself as chairman, paid by him and subject to dismissal by him. As an alternative to democratic accountability, that is a farce. Ratepayers will pay taxation without the normal local representation that is found in the rest of the country. Moreover, the GLC is to be abolished and replaced by a central bureaucracy.
The Bill is ideological and will undoubtedly produce a transport service that costs more, is inferior and does not meet the needs of London. Moreover, it will be paid for by those who are least able to bear the cost and by the unemployed. The burden will be put on those who are in desperate need of a proper and adequate public transport service which, when we are returned to power, we shall see returned to London.

Mr. Maples: The emotional style of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) shows the emotional and irrational way in which the Opposition have examined the Bill. It is an old record that is full of long and well-held prejudices which make no attempt to understand what the Bill attempts to do.
I welcome the Bill for two main reasons. First, it will introduce some competition into the provision of transport services in London and, secondly, as a result, London's transport will be better managed. It will be able to act more commercially and will therefore provide a better service at lower cost. LT is essentially a commercial enterprise and it is only in the past eight to 10 years that it has received substantial subsidy. Conservative Members would like that subsidy to be reduced, but not at the expense of increasing fares. To achieve that, LT must attract more traffic by providing a service at lower cost. Those are commercial matters which involve better marketing and cost control. That is what professional managers are good at, what they are trained to do and what they must be left free to do. We must remove from LT the dead hand of political control that has been so evident. Opposition Members laugh, but the dead hand of political control has resulted too often in public enterprises being run for the benefit of the staff and the votes that politicians can attract rather than for the benefit of users and the taxpayers who subsidise them.
We need to strike a balance between efficiency and social or public need as running LT entirely as a public service is the road to less service and higher costs. The London Transport Board has not been composed of people with a deep knowledge of how to run a complicated and large enterprise. It needs people who know about marketing, operational management, financial control and vehicle servicing. It has had people who know and care only about political considerations. That is a recipe for bad management, the result of which is that tough decisions are postponed, new ideas are discouraged and efficiency is sacrificed. We need a board with a deep knowledge and which will back a strong management and allow it to run the operation efficiently and progressively.
The introduction of competition will go some way to remedying the monopolistic character of LT Most monopolies are bad as they become self-satisfied and maximise their own convenience rather than that of their customers. Competition stimulates such good management. Opposition Members who do not believe that should reflect on what has happened to airlines on the north Atlantic route and in the United States since deregulation..

Mr. Prescott: What about Laker?

Mr. Maples: Laker has done wonders for people who want to travel to the United States. He collapsed the cartel and broke the monopoly. That is why we now have much cheaper air fares.

Mr. Prescott: And he owed hundreds of millions of pounds.

Mr. Maples: Ask the passengers, who like it. On that route, marketing and efficiency have been stimulated, with the result that choice has been widened and costs reduced. It is a fallacy to assume that a monopoly is the right way in which to run any enterprise.
There are areas in which no one will be able to compete with LRT and others in which no one should be able to compete with LRT but there will be many in which private operators who are licensed by LRT or the Commissioners will be able to provide a better and cheaper service. The criticism that we hear is that it involves creaming off profits. We should examine what that means. It usually means that profitable routes which people want to use and


for which they are prepared to pay the economic price subsidise other routes, or that the ratepayers subsidise loss-making routes. Profitable routes are usually those which people use to get to and from work and the loss-making routes are usually in the outer-London suburbs.

Mr. Snape: That is not true either.

Mr. Maples: What I have described is usually termed the creaming off of profits. If socially necessary services must be provided and financed from public funds, they should be so financed and money should be earmarked for that purpose. It should not be lost in a web of cross subsidies.
We have heard much about democratic control. That is a fine sounding phrase, but it is simply a recipe for inefficiency coupled with high costs. Do Opposition Members believe that Marks and Spencer would provide a better service if its board were appointed by the Greater London council, and it had to consult 33 local authorities before it made decisions? If London Regional Transport ever provides half as good a service to the public as Marks and Spencer it will deserve to be the toast of this town.

Mr. Cohen: The Government are driving in the wrong direction. The Bill will bring about a deterioration in public transport in London and will set the pace for such a deterioration in public transport in the rest of the country.
On Wednesday we debated concessionary fares. The old-age pensioners forced the Government to introduce a uniform scheme, but that scheme is worse than the present scheme. It will operate only at off-peak hours. The Secretary of State will be able to alter terms, limitations and conditions, and so make it worse in future. There will be an annual charge for pensioners, and private operators, by their own service licence scheme, need not accept pensioners' passes. The scheme will deteriorate and there will be an extinction of local democratic control and accountability for public transport. All powers will be taken away from the elected Greater London council and given to the Secretary of State. He will have tight financial control, and the ability to hire, fire and control the board of London Regional Transport and the LRPC. A quango will be set up, based on the Secretary of State's patronage, consisting of business managers, ex-Tory Members of Parliament and part-timers, who will be paid huge salaries at public expense. There is even provision for chauffeur-driven cars and large expense accounts. People responsible for public transport services should travel on bus passes.
Privatisation will cream off the best routes—the lines to Heathrow and the Victoria line — and money from those profitable routes will not be available for local lines. Even on the break-even routes, the public will become reliant on private operators, who will receive increasing handouts from the public purse. Services will be unreliable. Buses will be turned round to meet the needs of a football crowd rather than to continue on an established route. Privatisation means lower wages and worse working conditions for public transport employees.
The Government claim the the Bill supports the integration of the buses, tube and railways, but it does precious little in that respect. With private operators and separate companies for buses and the tubes, it is a recipe

for disintegration. The stated aim is subsidy reduction. The Bill alters the authority's duty to meet that end instead of the needs of the travelling public.
The Secretary of State made it clear that financial criteria come first. The programme will reduce the subsidy. It may not be reduced immediately, but it will be reduced, and with it will come a dramatic reduction in services. The frequency of services, routes, and reliability will deteriorate, and station improvements and facilities for the disabled will be curtailed. Jobs will disappear. I forecast that 1,000 jobs a year will disappear during the next five years, and those people will be added to the dole queue.
The Bill will be remembered as heralding the death knell of the cheap fares policy, which has been not only popular but of enormous benefit to the public, to businesses and to London Transport, since more passengers mean more revenue. The policy has meant less congestion and fewer accidents. However, the Bill will mean a return to the old, vicious circle of decline with higher fares and poorer services. In addition, it is a bad Bill for ratepayers, who will have to make a higher contribution than they do now. Although businesses may gain because of a cut in the overall subsidy, they will also suffer because of higher fares and increased transport costs.
For those reasons, the Bill is a running sore for Londoners and will have to be repealed sooner rather than later.

Mr. Hanley: I must take this opportunity to mention what, for me, will be the abiding memory of the Bill: the unparalleled propaganda campaign by the GLC during the past three months. I have received more than 400 letters from constituents who are frightened by the posters and leaflets produced by the GLC. Our debates on the Bill have provided an opportunity to lay to rest some of those fears. Conservative Members have not had money to waste on propaganda. The poster campaign was aimed at those least able to defend themselves, especially the elderly, the disabled and the blind, but when one considers that for the first time this Bill has enshrined in statute fare concessions for those people, one realises how cynical and sad some of the publicity was.
The campaign that affected my constituents was "Come in No. 9, your time is up." The No. 9 bus route is used by the poorest in the old borough of Mortlake, which is in my constituency. I assure the House that that route is healthy. When Hammersmith bridge was closed recently, London Transport provided a shuttle service to the south side of the bridge, and passengers could walk across it and catch a No. 9 bus on the other side. That could have been London Transport's opportunity to axe the route, but it did not do so. It had confidence in the service and in my constituents. When I asked the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) why the GLC had chosen the No. 9 route, he replied, "We had to pick some number. It was not meant to be taken literally." It was taken literally by my constituents. I wish that GLC representatives would visit my constituency and say, "We are sorry that we picked your bus route. It could have been any one." The GLC picked a bus route at random without considering the facts or the finance for the purpose of spreading fear and despondency among those who cannot defend themselves.
Our debates in Committee produced some useful amendments, for which I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Minister of State. The Bill is unique in another respect: for the first time, ratepayers will know how much they must spend on public transport. In the past they have not known until after the event. There has been one percentage for one year and another for the next. This time there is an absolute limit, and we know how much the ratepayers must pay.
I warn the people of my constituency and of London that, now that this political football has gone, they had better watch out for the next one. It will probably be roads, with the GLC suggesting that some roads will be turned into motorways. It will stop at nothing to spread fear. After tonight, London Transport will be safe, but mark my words: there will be something else.

Mr. Ernie Roberts: We discussed the Bill in Committee for many weeks, yet the Government have conceded very few amendments.
This is a bad Bill because it takes London Transport out of democratic control. It is a bad Bill because it imposes financial burden on ratepayers without their authority. It is a bad Bill because it disintegrates London Transport, British Rail, the underground and bus services. It is a bad Bill because it worsens the conditions for free bus pass users. It is a bad Bill because it will permit the sale of parts of London Transport to private profiteers. It is a bad Bill because it will lead to cuts in services and increased fares. It is a bad Bill because, under the slogan of efficiency, thousands of transport staff will lose their jobs. It is a bad Bill because it will hold back all the improvements that London Transport needs. It is a bad Bill because it is antidemocratic and destructive, and fares will be more expensive. That is my opinion.

Mr. Stephen Ross: We should, I suppose, at least congratulate the Secretary of State and his able Minister of State on getting the Bill this far. I repeat my total opposition to the whole philosophy behind it. The Bill was conceived to meet a situation which all of us who believe in local democracy must abhor. As the Secretary of State clearly said in his speech, it is a total anti-Livingstone Bill.
In Committee I asked the Secretary of State whether he had ever served in local government, and he said that he had served on a rural district council. Three or four years ago I decided that there was no point in my trying to get concessions for my constituents in this House, so I deliberately fought a county council election. The only person on the register whose name I recognised was the Conservative agent, and I thought that I would not win. However, I did and I led the county council for the next two years. There is one statistic of which I am proud. In 1980, our income from industrial premises owned by the county council was £9,000. Today it is £84,000. That is no thanks to the Government, because we received no concessions or financial assistance from them. However, it shows what can be done as a local government initiative, and the same applies to transport.
For the Secretary of State to infer that transport will be better run by a quango that he will set up is appalling. Equally, I cannot understand how the hon. Member for

Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) can claim that his constituents will be better off, given that they are losing their democratic rights.
While very little was conceded in Committee we must be thankful for small gestures. There has been the cynical concession on concessionary fares, but that had to be given to Conservative Members representing London constituencies, most of whom fought the last election on the pledge that they would not yield that. What about the rest of the country? What about my constituents and others who do not enjoy such concessions? They, too, have rights, and they, too, should be written into statute for the first time.
It is true that there has been some widening, of the responsibilities for regional transport boards, but I shall await developments because I believe that the Secretary of State will have to eat his words in relation to cutting costs. I only hope that the other place will have more influence than this House has had. It is extraordinary that the House of Lords, which no one elected, has become the conscience of the nation.
It is particularly tragic, at a time when London Transport is showing signs of considerable improvement, that we should be taking this step. The rights of individuals are being swept aside. They cannot even challenge decisions in the courts—like Bromley—and they can make only limited representations on services through the relevant appointed passenger committee.
For God's sake, let us consider the experiences of other countries. Let us look at what happened in America— the greatest supporter of private enterprise. Why was America forced to nationalise its railways? Why did it bring in Amtrac? Why can we not follow the French and have good public transport services, railways and underground systems? Why do we not follow the example of the Germans and Swiss? Why must we put the bloody clock back—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I withdraw that remark. Why must we go back to the chaotic times of the 1920s and 1930s? I realised how old I am getting when I listened to Mr. Kenneth Baker on the "Start of the Week" programme this morning, when the outbreak of war in 1939 was discussed.
I remember the chaotic competition in transport in London and elsewhere in the late 1920s and early 1930s. We do not want to go back to that. We want an efficient public transport system in London and throughout the country, and the Bill is not the way to get it. It will be a costly process and one that is not worth taking. The Secretary of State is living in cloud-cuckoo-land, as he has shown by his remarks. I reject the Bill and bitterly resent what is happening.

Dr. Ian Twinn: I welcome the Third Reading because it is a good Bill. Throughout the 103 hours of debate and sometimes heated rhetoric — but little more than heated rhetoric from the Opposition—we have improved the Bill through various amendments. The people of London will welcome the Bill because it will take day-to-day political control of their transport from the small clique of Left-wingers in county hall.
I am not objecting to political control of transport as such, for where there is public subsidy elected politicians must have a say. I am concerned about Left-wing Labour party members on the board putting their fingers into the day-to-day organisation of London transport. That is patently not the way to run transport in the capital city. The


right course is to go for increased efficiency, and that is the goal behind the Bill. We can cut the cost by using professional management. We must have cost-effective provisions in the running of London Regional Transport.
London Transport is heavily subsidised by national taxpayers. As London Members of Parliament, we must not forget that we have a certain privileged position in London. Some of our colleagues outside look rather enviously at public transport in London and wonder why we are so cushioned. It is because we are the capital city and we have an important role to play. It is right that the national taxpayer should contribute, but it is also right that the Secretary of State should have a strong say in the running of London Transport.
I am particularly pleased that the amendment dealing with the disabled was accepted. It is right that the advances that have been made for them should not be thrown out simply because we are having a change in the system of control of London's transport. The protection for the disabled should be institutionalised. The annual reporting should do much to highlight what is being done, as well as acting as an effective pressure for improvements. I hope that improvements will continue to be made.
I am very pleased that the principle of consultation has been kept in balance. I have sat through the 103 hours of debate and been astonished at the rhetoric from the Opposition Benches with regard to consultation. They seem to want to fossilise transport in London by overdoing the consultation. Consultation is of use only if it is genuine, and if there is time within the year to have it.
I am sure that if Labour Members took the opportunity to talk to their colleagues in local government—which often they appear not to do, except at County hall— they would find that their colleagues do not want too much consultation. They want to be able to give clear views to LRT and to have those views taken into account. They do not want the process of consultation to be overdone.
I support the Bill and recommend it to hon. Members.

Mr. Tony Banks: The Secretary of State let slip the mask of cultivated indifference that he managed to maintain through most of the Committee stage when he made clear why the Bill is before us today. It has nothing whatever to do with transport policy, with the interests of Londoners or with strategic planning in London; it has everything to do with the abolition of the GLC. When his hon. Friends supported him we could see, with all the venom flowing from their lips, what the Bill is really about. As the Tories see it, it is intended to prepare the way for the abolition of the GLC.
In economic and social terms, the GLC's control of London Transport has been a story of social and economic success. In the economic sphere, one can point to the operating surplus of £35 million this year. Londoners overwhelmingly want control of their transport system through a democratically elected and accountable body. All the opinion polls say so and all the good sense supports that wish. Instead, London is being offered a sawn-off transport authority, an unelected quango, as my hon. Friends have rightly said, entirely under the diktat of the Secretary of State, the new commissar for London

Transport. One realises now what LRT stands for—leave it to Ridley transport. Londoners will have no say and the Secretary of State will tell us what will be done.
It is clear that the Bill is part of the Government's vindictive campaign against the GLC because they do not like the present political control of county hall. This is a shabby, squalid and basically dishonest Bill.

Mr. Snape: The House has been entertained, if that is the word, by a series of speeches from Conservative Members which have moved from the predictably squalid from the Secretary of State to the predictably snivelling from the Back Benches. The only reason for the Bill is that we have a Secretary of State riddled with political prejudice, who was determined to prove, during the debates on the Bill, that the Greater London council is unfit to run London Transport. He failed to prove that at an early stage and disappeared from the Committee to leave the bulk of the work, the detail, the nitty gritty, to the Minister of State.
If, after five months of the Bill, I have to listen again to speeches about business practices and professional management by people such as the hon. Member for Edmonton (Dr. Twinn), a lecturer, or the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), a lecturer—he should have stuck to winning baby competitions, because it has been downhill ever since for him—or a lawyer like the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Maples), or the other whipped-in puppet, the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey), who in Committee moved amendments at the Secretary of State's behest——

Mr. Terry Dicks: What about me?

Mr. Snape: No, I am saving the intellectual wing of the Tory party for later.
The Government have proved only one thing—the incompetence of the Secretary of State. He started off in a predictably cheap manner by talking about the leadership of the GLC and saying that the people of London voted for the present Lord McIntosh, rather than Ken Livingstone, the leader of the GLC. Mr. Livingstone was elected by his colleagues shortly after the last general election. If there is a squalid appointment to be talked about in London Transport, it is the appointment of the right hon. Gentleman. Nobody voted for him as Secretary of State for Transport. In the private opinion of some of some his colleagues, he is the worst of the pretty poor bunch that. they have had since 1979. If he wants to lecture us about democracy, he should concede for once that the only reason he is doing that job is that he is a tame, neutered torn cat who will vote for the Prime Minister's policies in Cabinet—that is his only qualification.
The intellectual quality of the Conservative party's argument has been put forward best of all by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) and that is a suitable comment on his colleagues in the Committee.
The Bill is squalid, to say the least. It will be the top priority of the next Labour Government to repeal it. I hope that in the short time left for the right hon. Gentleman in his office of state the damage done to the transport of the capital can be minimised.

Mrs. Chalker: It must be said at the outset that the Government would have introduced the Bill whoever


controlled the Greater London council. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for his support during Committee. It is crucial that we get a better deal for travellers, and that is the prime objective of the exercise. It is also important to bring together the British Rail and London Transport Executive systems to serve Londoners. For the first time, they will be looked at together, as was recommended by the Select Committee. I am confident that consumers will shortly see a considerable improvement, with more to follow formally in consumer legislation which is on the stocks.
I am also quite certain that a better-run system will cut the cost to ratepayers. We have a clear picture of exactly what the ratepayer will be paying for, which is quite different from the bundled-up budget of the GLC. I am also confident not only that travellers will see a steadily improving system in London but that that will be accompanied by a reduction in their rate bill.
I commend the Bill to the House and I hope that shortly we shall see the real reason why the GLC has fought it so hard.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 254, Noes 168.

Division No. 238]
[10 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Churchill, W. S.


Amess, David
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)


Ancram, Michael
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Arnold, Tom
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Ashby, David
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Aspinwall, Jack
Cockeram, Eric


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Colvin, Michael


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Conway, Derek


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Coombs, Simon


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Cope, John


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Couchman, James


Baldry, Anthony
Crouch, David


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Dickens, Geoffrey


Batiste, Spencer
Dicks, Terry


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Dorrell, Stephen


Bellingham, Henry
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Bendall, Vivian
Dover, Den


Benyon, William
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward


Berry, Sir Anthony
Dunn, Robert


Best, Keith
Durant, Tony


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Emery, Sir Peter


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Evennett, David


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Eyre, Sir Reginald


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Fallon, Michael


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Farr, John


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Fookes, Miss Janet


Braine, Sir Bernard
Forman, Nigel


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bright, Graham
Forth, Eric


Brinton, Tim
Fox, Marcus


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Franks, Cecil


Brooke, Hon Peter
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Browne, John
Glyn, Dr Alan


Bruinvels, Peter
Goodlad, Alastair


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Gower, Sir Raymond


Budgen, Nick
Gregory, Conal


Bulmer, Esmond
Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)


Butcher, John
Grist, Ian


Butterfill, John
Grylls, Michael


Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Gummer, John Selwyn


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hanley, Jeremy


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)


Carttiss, Michael
Hayes, J.


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Hayward, Robert


Chapman, Sydney
Henderson, Barry


Chope, Christopher
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael





Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Raffan, Keith


Hirst, Michael
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Rathbone, Tim


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Renton, Tim


Holt, Richard
Rhodes James, Robert


Howard, Michael
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Rifkind, Malcolm


Jackson, Robert
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


King, Rt Hon Tom
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Lamont, Norman
Roe, Mrs Marion


Lang, Ian
Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)


Latham, Michael
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Lawler, Geoffrey
Rost, Peter


Lester, Jim
Rowe, Andrew


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Lightbown, David
Ryder, Richard


Lloyd, Ian (Havant)
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lord, Michael
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Luce, Richard
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Lyell, Nicholas
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


McCrindle, Robert
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Macfarlane, Neil
Shersby, Michael


MacGregor, John
Silvester, Fred


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Maclean, David John
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Soames, Hon Nicholas


McQuarrie, Albert
Speed, Keith


Madel, David
Spencer, Derek


Major, John
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Malins, Humfrey
Squire, Robin


Malone, Gerald
Stanbrook, Ivor


Maples, John
Stanley, John


Marland, Paul
Stern, Michael


Marlow, Antony
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Mates, Michael
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Mather, Carol
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Maude, Hon Francis
Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stokes, John


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Stradling Thomas, J.


Mellor, David
Sumberg, David


Merchant, Piers
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Terlezki, Stefan


Miscampbell, Norman
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Mitchell, David (NW Hants)
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Moate, Roger
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Thorne, Neil (llford S)


Monro, Sir Hector
Thornton, Malcolm


Montgomery, Fergus
Thurnham, Peter


Moore, John
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Tracey, Richard


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Moynihan, Hon C.
van Straubenzee, Sir W,


Mudd, David
Waddington, David


Neubert, Michael
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Newton, Tony
Waldegrave, Hon William


Nicholls, Patrick
Walden, George


Nicholson, J.
Waller, Gary


Onslow, Cranley
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Oppenheim, Philip
Watson, John


Ottaway, Richard
Watts, John


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Parris, Matthew
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Wheeler, John


Pawsey, James
Whitfield, John


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Whitney, Raymond


Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Wiggin, Jerry


Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Powell, William (Corby)
Winterton, Nicholas


Powley, John
Wolfson, Mark


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Wood, Timothy


Price, Sir David
Woodcock, Michael


Proctor, K. Harvey
Yeo, Tim






Young, Sir George (Acton)
Mr. David Hunt and



Mr. Archie Hamilton.


Tellers for the Ayes:





NOES


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)


Ashdown, Paddy
Deakins, Eric


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Dewar, Donald


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Dixon, Donald


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Dormand, Jack


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Dubs, Alfred


Barron, Kevin
Duffy, A. E. P.


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Beith, A. J.
Eadie, Alex


Bell, Stuart
Eastham, Ken


Benn, Tony
Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Ellis, Raymond


Bermingham, Gerald
Evans, John (St. Helens N)


Bidwell, Sydney
Ewing, Harry


Blair, Anthony
Fatchett, Derek


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Boyes, Roland
Fisher, Mark


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Flannery, Martin


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
Foster, Derek


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Fraser, J. (Norwood)


Buchan, Norman
Garrett, W. E.


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
George, Bruce


Campbell, Ian
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Godman, Dr Norman


Canavan, Dennis
Golding, John


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Gould, Bryan


Cartwright, John
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Clarke, Thomas
Harman, Ms Harriet


Clay, Robert
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith


Cohen, Harry
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Coleman, Donald
Heffer, Eric S.


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)


Corbett, Robin
Howells, Geraint


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hoyle, Douglas


Craigen, J. M.
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Crowther, Stan
Hughes, Roy (Newport East)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Dalyell, Tam
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
John, Brynmor


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)





Kennedy, Charles
Randall, Stuart


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Redmond, M.


Kirkwood, Archibald
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Leadbitter, Ted
Richardson, Ms Jo


Leighton, Ronald
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Robertson, George


Litherland, Robert
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Robinson, P. (Belfast E)


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


McCartney, Hugh
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


McGuire, Michael
Rowlands, Ted


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Sedgemore, Brian


McKelvey, William
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


McNamara, Kevin
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


McTaggart, Robert
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


McWilliam, John
Skinner, Dennis


Marek, Dr John
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)


Martin, Michael
Snape, Peter


Maxton, John
Soley, Clive


Maynard, Miss Joan
Spearing, Nigel


Meacher, Michael
Stott, Roger


Meadowcroft, Michael
Strang, Gavin


Michie, William
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Mikardo, Ian
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Tinn, James


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Torney, Tom


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Nellist, David
Wareing, Robert


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Weetch, Ken


O'Brien, William
Welsh, Michael


O'Neill, Martin
White, James


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Wigley, Dafydd


Parry, Robert
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Patchett, Terry
Winnick, David


Pavitt, Laurie
Woodall, Alec


Pendry, Tom
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Penhaligon, David



Pike, Peter
Tellers for the Noes:


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Mr. James Hamilton and


Prescott, John
 Mr. Frank Haynes.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Telecommunications Bill [Money]

(No. 2)

Queen's Recommendation having been signified.

Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Telecommunications Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State in providing a radio interference service or in defraying or contribution towards the expenses of advisory bodies.—[Mr. Sainsbury.]

Mr. Teddy Taylor: There is a reference in the money resolution to which I should like an explanation. It refers to the Secretary of State providing a radio interference service. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will know that I have asked him no fewer than five questions over a fairly long period of time about the future of the radio interference service. It was provided by British Telecom on the instructions of the Home Office. It was a Home Office policing responsibility, and it did a good job. It was of assistance to the whole community, partly in chasing up the people who, by operating some of these strange radio systems, were causing interference to the televisions of other people. It was also a valuable aid to the community in checking on radio and television interference.
If the money resolution is passed, who will provide the service, and what will happen to the employees who currently work for British Telecom in the radio interference service? I assure my right hon. Friend the Minister, on the basis of the letter I sent to him, and the questions that I have asked of him, that for approximately one and a half years there has been great uncertainty among those working for the radio interference service. They have been constantly been asking me, just as I have been asking the Minister, what the future is for employees in that excellent Department.
I should like briefly to ask my right hon. Friend three specific questions. First, who will be the employers of those in the radio interference service if the money resolution is passed, bearing in mind that they were formerly employees of British Telecom, which did the job for the Home Office? Secondly, what will be the security of employment for those who change from one employer to another? Thirdly, what will be the conditions of employment of those who are changing again from one employer to another? I should be interested to know my right hon. Friend's views on that. Will the size, scope and responsibilities of the radio interference service be the same as they were before, bearing in mind that it did a very good job for the whole community?

Mr. Bowen Wells: I shall not detain the House for long, but I should like my right hon. Friend the Minister to explain the meaning of the phrase
defraying or contributing towards the expenses of advisory bodies.
Those words appear in the money resolution, and the House should know what advisory bodies and expenses we are talking about before it votes on that resolution.

The Minister for Information Technology (Mr. Kenneth Baker): My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) asked about the advisory bodies. The money resolution is needed in view of changes made in the other place. In amendments that we shall come to later, the other place asked that two additional advisory bodies be set up: one to advise the Director General on small businesses, and one to advise the Director General on the disabled. They will be, as it were, consumer advisory bodies for those interests. A s the expenses of those bodies, and the travelling and subsistence expenses of those who serve on them have to be met, that phrase has been used in the resolution. We expect expenditure covering those two advisory bodies to be small, and certainly less than £10,000 a year.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) mentioned the radio interference service. I entirely agree that its work is very valuable and important, and I know that he has taken an interest in it for some time. For many years there has been a radio interference service to deal with complaints about interference in broadcast reception and other radio services. The service originated with the Post Office, when the latter had responsibility for radio regulatory matters, and there it stayed until the creation of BT in 1981, when it passed to that body. Over the years, however, it has had several masters—as my hon. Friend rightly pointed out—as responsibility for radio regulation has shifted from one Department to another, from the Post Office to the Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications, to the Home Office and now to the Department of Trade and Industry. Throughout that time the service has been funded by Parliament.
Currently, the service's costs are split between the Home Office, which pays for the investigation of complaints in sound and television broadcasting and recoups the money from the television licence fee revenue, and the Department of Trade and Industry, under our Vote, Class IV. There has, however, never been any express statutory provision for that expenditure. The Government are therefore taking this opportunity to make such provision, and the provision makes clear the Secretary of State's authority to pay for the radio interference service.
I was asked about the future of the service, and I should say that the service is important and will have to continue. BT has expressed a wish to cease providing the radio interference service once it becomes a private company, and hon. Members may feel that it would be appropriate for it to do so, because it will be competing, and the role of the radio interference service is to act as a watchdog or policeman.
In the light of that, we have been considering urgently the future form of the service, and I hope to make an announcement very shortly. However, I shall, of course, take into consideration the points made about the employees' contracts and their terms and conditions of employment and see whether, for a time, BT could undertake the service under contract. That may be a way out. However, I assure the House that the service will continue.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: When does my right hon. Friend expect a statement to be made?

Mr. Baker: I would hope in the early summer.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,


That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Telecommunications Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State in providing a radio interference service or in defraying or contributing towards the expenses of advisory bodies.

Telecommunications Bill (Allocation of Time)

Ordered,
That the Order of the House [21st November] be supplemented as follows:

Lords Amendments

1. — (1) The proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall be completed at this day's sitting.

(2) The order in which the proceedings are taken shall be Lords Amendments 1 to 60, Lords Amendments 62 to 79, Lords Amendments 181 to 251, Lords Amendments 80 and 81, Lords Amendment 82A, Lords Amendment 82, Lords Amendment 61, Lords Amendments 83 to 180 and Lords Amendments 252 to 277 and, subject to the provisions of the Order of 21st November, each part of the proceedings shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at the end of such period beginning with the commencement of the proceedings on the Motion for this Order as is of the length specified in the second column of the Table set out below.


TABLE


Proceedings


Lards Amendments
Length of period


1 to 56
¾hour


6 to 60, 62 to 79 and 181 to 251
1½hours


80, 81 and 82A
2¾hours


82, 61 and 83 to 140
3½hours


141 to 180 and 252 to 277
4 hours

(3) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.

(4) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings shall be made except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

2. For the purposes of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 above—

(a)Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided and, if that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment, shall then put forthwith the Question on any further Amendment of the said Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown and on any Motion moved by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in the said Lords Amendment or, as the case may be, in the said Lords Amendment as amended;
(b)Mr. Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining Lords Amendments as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

(i) put forthwith the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment and then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in their Amendment, or, as the case may be, in their Amendment as amended;
(ii) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in a Lords Amendment;
(iii)) put forthwith with respect to each Amendment designated by Mr. Speaker which has not been disposed of the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Amendment; and
(iv) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments;

(c) as soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to that Lords Amendment.

Stages subsequent to first Consideration of Lords Amendments

3. The proceedings on any further message from the Lords on the Bill shall be brought to a conclusion one hour after the commencement of the proceedings.

4. For the purpose of bringing those proceedings to a conclusion—

(a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided, and shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) Mr. Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining items in the Lords Message as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

(i) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on any item;
(ii) in the case of each remaining item designated by Mr. Speaker, put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Proposal; and
(iii) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

Supplemental

5. — (1) In this paragraph "the proceedings" means proceedings on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill, on the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the Report of such a Committee.

(2) Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the consideration forthwith of the Message or, as the case may be, for the appointment and quorum of the Committee.

(3) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which they are appointed.

(4) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.

(5) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings shall be made except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

(6) If the proceedings are interrupted by a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 10 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on the Motion shall be added to the period at the end of which the proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion.

Proceedings on the above Motion shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, pursuant to the Order of the House [21st November] —[Mr. Kenneth Baker.]

Telecommunications Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Clause 3

GENERAL DUTIES OF SECRETARY OF STATE AND DIRECTOR

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 3, line 2, after second "services" insert "directory information services,"

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. John Butcher): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 9, 11, 12, 30, 31, 33 and 170.

Mr. Butcher: All the amendments are concerned with the directory inquiry service. They have been tabled in response to the worries expressed in another place and elsewhere. The amendments will write clearly into the Bill two firm safeguards. One safeguard will ensure that the directory inquiry service will continue and the other safeguard will protect the blind and others who through disability cannot use printed directories if charges are ever introduced for the service. Those who were members of the Committee which considered the Bill late last year will remember that these two issues were discussed in Committee. At that time we took the view that the Bill as drafted and the draft licence for BT provided sufficient safeguards. However, on reflection we have decided that it is desirable to put clear safeguards in the Bill, and that is what the amendments will achieve.
Amendment No. 1 adds directory information services to the list of services in clause 3(1)(a), which imposes a paramount duty on the Secretary of State and director to exercise their functions so as to secure the provision of the services listed in the subsection. The main way in which this duty will be fulfilled is through the inclusion of conditions in the licence to be granted to operators of telecommunications systems. Most important in this respect is the licence to be granted to BT. This will include, as does the draft licence in condition 3, a condition requiring BT to provide directory information over the telephone. Directory information services are defined in clause 4(2)(b). As a result of the inclusion of amendment No. 1, some minor drafting changes are necessary and these are achieved by amendments Nos. 9, 11 and 12.
Amendments Nos. 30, 31, 33 and 170 provide protection in respect of charges for directory inquiries for the blind and others who through disability cannot use the alternative of printed directories. We fully understand the concern that has been expressed, and we implemented such a safeguard in condition 34 of the draft licence. However, we agree that it is desirable to have the safeguard written into the Bill, and that is what amendment No. 30 does. The broad effect of the new subsection (1A) is to ensure that before the operators of the major systems providing voice telephony to the public— which are BT, Mercury and Hull—can be designated as PTOs under clause 9, their licences must include a condition requiring them to provide without charge for


subscribers who are blind or otherwise disabled such directory information services as are appropriate to meet the needs of those subscribers.
The new subsection (1A) clarifies the precise information service that is to be required. It must be information for the purpose of facilitating the use of a voice telephony service. This covers telephone numbers and other information such as STD codes that are essential for making telephone calls but which sometimes have to be obtained from a different source. Subsection (1B) clarifies exactly to whom subsection (1A) applies as those "blind or otherwise disabled" persons who are
unable to use a telephone directory".
That includes the blind, the acutely dyslexic and others who are so physically disabled that they cannot pick up or leaf through a telephone book.
Amendments Nos. 31. 33 and 170 are consequential. Amendments Nos. 31 and 33 are simply drafting consequentials, and amendment No. 170 adds to the list of definitions in clause 94 a reference to directory inquiry services.

Mr. Harry Ewing: The Opposition accept the amendments as improvements to the Bill on its return from another place, and we are grateful for them. It is a pity that nowhere in the Bill is there a reference to operator services, although it is true that there is a reference to directory services.
The definition of "blind or otherwise disabled" will be left to the Director General of OFTEL. It is possible that the definition will be drawn too tightly. For example, does blind include the partially sighted? The Minister must agree that there is a danger that some people whom both he and I would want included in the definition may be excluded.
There is a strong case for the Government to lay down the definition for the Director General. The House should discuss the definition so that we know how widely or how tightly it will be drawn. I am sure the House agrees that an illiterate person is disabled. Such a person cannot read a telephone directory. We take for granted our ability to read and write and forget the vast numbers of people who cannot do so. I hope that the definition of "blind or otherwise disabled" will include the illiterate.
To a certain extent, old age is a disability. A whole host of the elderly become confused. They suffer from dementia and various other afflictions. It is a growing problem as the number of elderly people increases. There is a strong case for the House debating the drawing of the definition of "blind or otherwise disabled".
I hope that the Minister will tell us how he envisages the Director General carrying out the responsibilities laid on him under the terms of the licences issued to Hull, Mercury and BT plc. As the Minister appreciates, it is an important matter. There is no doubt on either side of the House that as soon as BT becomes BT plc and Mercury comes into operation, they will charge for certain services. BT has been trying to charge for those services during the past 18 months to two years. Only the political storm that blew up stopped it from charging for the directory inquiry and other operator services. I want to hear the Minister explain to the House how he envisages the system working.
I am sure the Minister will concede that there is a strong possibility of BT and Mercury charging for those services. Will the blind or otherwise disabled be charged and then given a rebate? If so, the administrative problems will be monumental. Although the Opposition welcome the Bill's improvement, we are anxious to ensure that we do not need to return to this matter frequently on discovering pitfalls.
For those reasons, I have put those points as constructively as I can. I hope that I have helped the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, but it is more important that we help the blind, the other disabled and the old who become confused. I hope that we shall help also the illiterate who cannot read directories but who must use operator services to a greater degree than many hon. Members appreciate.

Mr. David Penhaligon: Does the legislation deal satisfactorily with the position of those who can read a telephone directory, but, because of Parkinson's disease or another disease, cannot dial a number. They use the telephone exchange a great deal to call eight and 10 digit numbers.

Mr. Ewing: The hon. Gentleman draws out another example, as I am sure every other hon. Member can. I am anxious that the definition of "blind or otherwise disabled" is drawn as widely as possible. It should not be a restrictive definition that would exclude people such as those to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
In the past 18 months to two years British Telecom has been balancing its tariff increases to load the cost of operator services on to those who use them most. The largest percentage tariff increase has been in operator-connected telephone calls. That brings out the point made by the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon). The increase in charges for operator-connected calls from a private telephone or call box has been much greater than the increase for direct dialling calls from the same source. An attempt is being made to balance the tariffs and load the cost of operator-connected services on to the people who use them most.
This is my first opportunity to ask the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State a particular question. We must bear in mind that the local telephone directory is the only directory issued to a subscriber free of charge. A person in Cornwall wishing to dial a number in Aberdeen would first think of ringing directory inquiries. Recently, the operator has been asking whether the inquiry is coming from a private of business telephone or another source.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will enlighten the House with the reasons for conducting a survey into charges. There must be a survey to decide the level of charge that British Telecom plc, and subsequently Mercury, will impose to finance the cost of operator-connected services.
I end where I began: we welcome the improvement. As constructively as possible I have put forward the difficulties ahead, which we hope can be surmounted by the widest possible definition of "blind or otherwise disabled". I hope that we shall hear an equally constructive response from the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Stuart Randall: Neither the amendment nor the Bill refers to operator services. The amendment refers only to directory


information services and does not include operator services. That is a serious omission, because handicapped people and the elderly rely on operator services and they will face serious problems.
The amendment will provide that the Secretary of State and the Director General will be obliged to provide directory information services. Clause 4, as it will be amended by amendment No. 11, defines such services as:
consisting in the provision by means of a telecommunication system of directory information".
The clause defines a telecommunication system as a system:
for the conveyance, through the agency of electric, magnetic, electro-magnetic, electro-chemical or electro-mechanical energy
and so on, but it does not refer to flesh and blood and I infer that the Government do not intend to include operator services.
The amendment is unsuitable, because the handicapped, dyslectic and illiterate need to use operator services. The amendment has serious shortcomings.
Most people do not have problems in using telephone directories. We can cope with the books, except when we want to ring people outside our local area. Then we have to use the operator services. We should regard directory services as a sub-set of operator services.
As technology becomes more complex, the requirement for operator services will increase. How many Conservative Members can use all the facilities on the House's telephone system? How many can find their way through the House's hopeless directory? We have to rely on directory services.

Mr. Richard Page: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that new technology will mean less man-intervention in our affairs and that machines will take over and give us a 24-hour a day service that will be more effective? Surely the hon. Gentleman is going down the wrong path.

Mr. Randall: The hon. Gentleman does not understand the complexity of man-machine interfaces. There will have to be years of development of software systems to ensure that the human being can communicate effectively with the new technology.
For the elderly and the handicapped, the problems will be even more complex. As the new technology is introduced, the problems involved in communication for the handicapped will become even more immense.
The Bill eliminates the option of providing operators services, simply by making no reference to such services. That is one of the results of the privatisation of BT. There will be other such developments.
We know why the Government have taken this line, and we understand why BT supports the Government. Operator services are expensive. They are bound to be expensive because they involve people, and people tend to be expensive these days. The Labour party believes that the priority is wrong. People should come before profits: it is as simple as that. We believe that we should pay for the services, to make sure that the old, the infirm and the handicapped are properly cared for.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) rightly pointed out, BT is re-balancing its tariffs, and those who have the greatest need for such services will have to carry the cost. The cost of operator-connected calls in the forthcoming year, during the cheap rate period on

a private telephone, will increase by up to 30 per cent. If one uses a call box, the increase will be up to 25 per cent. Those figures must be compared with an average increase in the cost of service of only 2·7 per cent. That shows how those who need the services are being discriminated against.
As we know, BT hopes very much to charge for directory services. It has tried to do so in the past. I believe that after privatisation one will have to pay for directory calls. Although in amendment No. 30 the Government promise to provide services for the handicapped and the blind, it is crucially important to define precisely what that means. If the Government are to charge everyone for directory services—including the blind, the handicapped and the elderly—and then provide a rebate, the costs of administration will be phenomenal. There will be pressure to provide services just for the registered blind, and all the other people, such as the dyslexic and the illiterate, will be cast aside. They will not be entitled to use the telephone services. That will be a serious disadvantage to those who should be entitled to use the services.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: It is remarkable that in the course of a four-hour debate we have to deal with 277 amendments. That being so, I shall be brief. However, it is worth reminding the Government that we face a multitude of amendments on a deeply flawed Bill and that we have been asked to encompass a broad area in a short space of time.
I welcome this group of amendments, especially Nos. 1 and 30, as I know that they were pressed hard in another place by noble Lords in the alliance parties. Amendment No. 1 on directories will be welcome to Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran who pressed the Minister in another place on this matter. Although amendment No. 1 is worth supporting, it should be pointed out that it is a cosmetic measure that does not go nearly as far as we would like.

Mr. John Golding: How many Lords who are members of the Social Democratic party have supported it?

Mr. Ashdown: Is the hon. Gentleman referring to amendment No. 1? The alliance has supported it, as it appears to improve the Bill.
The hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) made an important point about operator services. Emergency and directory services are secured, but they are not secured free. The Government claim that that matter is reflected in the licence agreement, but that agreement can be changed by agreement between the Director General of Oftel and the licensee, perhaps with the inclusion of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. The free directory and emergency services can be made not free without the licence being brought back before Parliament. That is a significant weakness.
10.45 pm
Amendment No. 30 deals with the maintenance of a free service for the blind and the disabled. The key issue is how those groups will be defined and how the scheme will operate. The hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) mentioned the illiterate. Are they included? The Minister has said that the illiterate and the dyslexic will be included. The Minister should clarify how he defines those people and the blind. We understand that implementation of the free service will lie with the Director General of


Oftel. How will we provide a service for a disabled person who is married to a sighted person? The possible removal of the free service will be a withdrawal of a significant right. We need clarification about how those rights will be defined and applied.
We can agree with this group of amendments, as they are an improvement, but that is not to say that we are satisfied that they go far enough in terms of safeguards of the definitions that the Minister has given about how they will operate and to whom they will apply.

Mr. Golding: Can the Minister say whether the further safeguards will be spelt out in the licence? Obviously it is impossible to change the Bill now, but will he assure the House that all the points raised tonight will be taken into account and that the licence will spell out all the safeguards for which hon. Members on both sides of the House have asked?

Mr. Butcher: With the permission of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall reply to the debate. The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) used the word "cosmetic". The Government reject that accusation because it does not bear examination. I can only assume that the hon. Gentleman is indulging in the habit of Liberal and SDP Members of speaking widely early in the debate, knowing that they need an early night, and wishing to get in very general points on specific amendments.

Mr. Ashdown: I hope that the Minister will not seek to answer my points by insults. I asked for definitions. I asked him in particular whether the licence could be changed to remove free directory and emergency services without that matter returning to the House. He should answer those points in a more general way, and not throw insults.

Mr. Butcher: The hon. Gentleman should not insult the House by betraying the fact that he and other members of his party have not read the Bill. If he examines amendment No. 30 carefully, he will see that "blind or otherwise disabled" means
so blind or otherwise disabled as to be unable to use a telephone directory.
This amendment relates to the blind and to directory inquiry services. The Director General can draw that definition as wide as he wishes. For example, it might be rather dangerous to say that only the registered disabled should be treated in that way, because that might impose the restrictions that the hon. Gentleman fears. We have given the Director General a form of words which allows him adequately to fulfil this service.
Furthermore, the definitions are subject to guidance from the disablement advisory group which the Bill states should be set up. Even when we move to the licence conditions mentioned by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding), who was right to say that the licence conditions can be amended on the advice of that advisory group and others, the provisions will allow the Director General to meet the representations that might be made in that regard. The Director General will be guided by experts in such matters.

Mr. Ashdown: The Minister mentioned those who are too blind to use telephone directories. What about those who are too blind or disabled to use telephones?

Mr. Butcher: As I said to the hon. Gentleman earlier, if he reads on he will find that the more general question is dealt with in the next amendment. This amendment deals specifically with the blind and those who cannot use a telephone directory. I will not hazard a guess on the Floor of the House tonight as to how one draws a distinction between those who fall into this category, the illiterate and dyslexic. However, I agree that there are those with a genuine illness who cannot read to the required standard. I cannot say tonight that only they should be included in the provisions of the Bill, because that is the sort of definition that we shall require from those who advise the Director General.
The way in which this condition will be implemented will not be decided until or unless British Telecom concludes that it wishes to levy charges for the generality of directory inquiry services. If it does—this meets the point made by the hon. Member for Newcastle-underLyme—that licence conditions will be drafted so that BT must agree with the Director General how the subscribers covered by subsection (1A) are to be identified before it can introduce charges. I have no doubt that the Director General's special advisory group on matters affecting the disabled will play a valuable role in this respect.
The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) made a specific point about those who are unable to dial. That, too, will be taken into consideration. However, as the information technology aficionado of his party, perhaps he will know about the developments in technology which allow people with limited speech ability access to repertory dialling. This facility is becoming more prevalent, and my own Department has special information technology schemes for the disabled which allow them to take advantage of this kind of facility.
We are saying that there will be a directory inquiry service for those who are disabled in the manner so described should there be charges for such services. Elsewhere we deal with the old and the handicapped. However, in no circumstances can this amendment be seen to have any relevance to the future decisions of BT and other operators on whether they will always continue to supervise and implement the current level of operator services. I am unable to offer any reassurance in that regard in the context of this amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 2, in page 3, line 14, after "disabled" insert "or of pensionable age".

Mr. Kenneth Baker: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): With this we may take Lords amendments Nos. 127, 128, 130 and 133.

Mr. Baker: This group of amendments, as with the group that we have just discussed, is designed to strengthen the protection in the Bill for particular groups. In the last group we were concerned with a special category of people—those who through disability cannot use printed telephone directories, although hon. Members also mentioned other disabilities.
In these amendments we are concerned with all disabled persons, with the elderly—or, strictly, persons of pensionable age as defined in the amendments—and with small businesses. In another place, concern was


expressed that though the Bill as drafted covered these groups, and explicitly so in the case of the disabled, there was a risk that their interests could be overlooked by the director, and that therefore a special mention of these groups on the face of the Bill was desirable. We agreed with this, and these amendments are the result.
I should like, first, to explain amendments Nos. 127, 128, 130 and 133. Amendment No. 127 is purely a paving amendment, but the effect of amendment No. 128 is to require the Director — as opposed to the permissive provision in the Bill as it stands—to set up two special advisory bodies, one for matters affecting small businesses and one for matters affecting persons who are disabled or of pensionable age. In appointing members to these bodies, the director must, by amendment No. 130, have regard to the desirability of having members who are familiar with the special requirements and circumstances of small businesses or persons who are disabled or of pensionable age, as the case may be.
The establishment of these two bodies, whose members will be experts in their appropriate fields, will ensure not only that the director has specialist advice at his disposal but also that he is kept fully informed of the needs and requirements—and, indeed, any changes to them—of small businesses, the disabled and the elderly.
These advisory bodies will be required to make annual reports to the director which will be published in his own annual report. In addition, amendment No. 133 gives a further strengthening by requiring the director himself to include in his own report a review of developments and activities in telecommunications in so far as they affect small businesses, the disabled and persons of pensionable age.
Amendment No. 2 simply follows the wording in the other amendments where we refer to the disabled and elderly together. Amendment No. 2, therefore, inserts a reference to the latter in clause 3(2)(a)—an important clause—so that the Secretary of State and the director will have a positive duty to promote the interests of all consumers and so on, including in particular those who are disabled and of pensionable age. These amendments will provide substantial reassurance to those affected, and I hope that they will be welcomed.
The House, and those who have followed the Bill, will appreciate that in several respects the Bill significantly improves the position of the disabled in relation to telecommunications. There are provisions in the general clause 3(2)(a) that the Secretary of State and the Director have to take the disabled into account, and now we have added the elderly. Then there are the two special additional advisory bodies.
11 pm.
In clause 83 the Secretary of State has powers to pay money to develop equipment which could, for example, ensure that electronic PABXs could continue to be operated by blind telephone operators — it is an important source of employment for blind people—and to pay money for the adjustment of other equipment to help the disabled. Those obligations are reflected in the licence conditions at lines 31 to 34.

Mr. Tony Marlow: Everyone has a great deal of good will and sympathy towards people of pensionable age, but what is it physically about such people that merits their having special consideration in the way suggested? I hate to give a personal example, but I

have a grannie of 90 who has been of pensionable age for 30 years. I do not think that either now or during the past 30 years has she required any special telephone apparatus or any special consideration from the telephone authorities. Will my right hon. Friend explain why people of pensionable age are being specially treated?

Mr. Baker: The proposal emanated from the other House, where some of the Members may be closer to pensionable age than the Members of this House. Several Members in the other place expressed the view that the elderly are often hard of hearing and have various other difficulties which do not qualify them as being disabled but none the less have a bearing on the telecommunication services provided throughout the country. So it was felt —I think correctly—that there should be an advisory body dealing specifically with their present requirements and their changing requirements. I do not see anything against that. I think it would be helpful for the Director to draw advice from a group concerned with the ailments that come upon people as they grow older.
One of the other advisory bodies to be set up is to advise the Director on small businesses. That is very important, because he will have an independent source of advice to him about how the telecommunications regime operates in that respect. We want to see a proliferation of small competing businesses in the provision of apparatus and services, and that would again be a definite improvement. I think that the Bill has been improved by the amendments which have come from the other place.

Mr. David Crouch: In his intervention my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) mentioned a person of 90 who is quite capable of handling ordinary telephone equipment. My right hon. Friend will, I am sure, be aware that people age differently and at different ages. It is a well-known medical problem. I am much involved in health questions, and I hope that he will be sensitive to the matter. There are some persons in the mid-60s who cannot use a dial telephone because of alzheimer's disease or something of that sort, and find a push-button set much easier to use. Will my right hon. Friend take that thought into consideration?

Mr. Baker: I am very glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) has mentioned that point, because I know that his remarks will be read by the managers and chairman of BT. I think that BT is rightly proud of the range of ancillary equipment that it has designed specifically for the disabled. It is an impressive range of equipment and does not just include inductive couplers for the hard of hearing, the deaf or the very deaf; it includes a range of equipment to help people who have physical disabilities in coping with the electronic equipment. I accept the point that for many people the push-button telephone is often easier to operate than the dial telephone.
Those are the sorts of points that will be brought to the attention of the director, should he overlook them, by the advisory body that the amendments seek to set up.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 5, in page 3, line 46, after "10(3)" insert
or (7A) or (Power to give assistance in relation to certain proceedings)

Mr. Butcher: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 37 to 39, 41 to 46, 70 and 122.

Mr. Butcher: These amendments cover related subjects in the steps which the Government will take in licensing operators to use the powers of the telecommunications code to ensure that the environment is protected. Apart from amendment No. 38, which was an Opposition amendment which the Government accepted, these amendments were introduced in the other place in recognition of the genuine concern that was expressed that there must be adequate safeguards in this area. The Government are committed to the proposition that there——

It being three quarters of an hour after the commencement of proceedings on the motion relating to the Telecommunications Bill (Allocation of Time), MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the order this day, to put forthwith the Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

Lords amendment No. 5 agreed to.

Mr. Golding: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would it not be for the convenience of the House, at the end of each guillotine stage, unless hon. Members have informed you, to the contrary, to put together the Questions on all the amendments, so that we can vote on them together?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is what will happen. We had already disposed of the first four amendments, and only amendments Nos. 1 to 5 were to be dealt with in the first three quarters of an hour.

Clause 4

MEANING OF TELECOMMUNICATION SYSTEM" AND RELATED EXPRESSIONS

Lords amendment: No. 6, in page 4, leave out lines 17 to 21 and insert—
(1A) For the purposes of this Act telecommunication apparatus which is situated in the United Kingdom and—

(a) is connected to but not comprised in a telecommunication system; or
(b) is connected to and comprised in a telecommunication system which extends beyond the United Kingdom,

shall be regarded as a telecommunication system and any person who controls the apparatus shall be regarded as running the system.

Mr. Butcher: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 7, 8, 10, 13 to 18, 172 and 252.

Mr. Butcher: These are straightforward amendments, designed to clarify and expand the meaning of what constitutes a telecommunications system and commercial activities connected with telecommunications. They also remove ambiguities from the definition of telecommunications apparatus and the circumstances in which a telecommunications system and apparatus are connected from the purpose of the Bill. I hope that these amendments will help the understanding of what is an important and complex clause.

Mr. Golding: How will these amendments assist our understanding of the clause?

Mr. Butcher: In some cases apparatus may switch without conveying, but apparatus may still need licensing. It would be nonsense if we were not to make that clear. Amendment No. 6 expands the definition of system. Subsection (1A) (a) provides that single items of apparatus that are
connected to but not comprised in a telecommunication system
are treated as systems and are therefore licensable.
Subsection (1A)(b) provides that apparatus that
is connected to and comprised in a telecommunication system that extends beyond the United Kingdom
is also licensable.
Amendment No. 7 clarifies the definition of commercial activities connected with telecommunications and so covers the acquisition of apparatus for a client. As the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) will know, this covers BT.
With that further clarification, I commend these amendments to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Clause 6

EXCEPTIONS TO SECTIONS 5

Lords amendment: No. 19, in page 6, leave out lines 25 to 28 and insert
in the case of which every conveyance made by it is either—
(a) a transmission, by wireless telegraphy, from a transmitting station for general reception of sounds, visual images or such signals as are mentioned in paragraph (c) of section 4(1) above; or
(b) a conveyance within a single set of premises of sounds, visual images or such signals which are to be or have been so transmitted.

Mr. Butcher: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 20 and 21.

Mr. Butcher: These two amendments are technical amendments to the exemptions from licensing in clause 6. Amendment No. 19 concerns the exemption from licensing for the broadcasting authorities. We wish to ensure that they are exempt from licensing when they are engaged in activities that are strictly broadcasting but are not exempt in respect of other activities. As drafted, the exemption is defective in that in some circumstances it appears too wide, and in others too narrow. It is too wide because it covers some activities that we do not wish to exempt—for example, where the broadcasters run links from their studios to their transmitters and from outside broadcast locations back to their studios. It is too narrow because there is a doubt whether it covers, as is desired, relay stations run by the broadcasting authorities.
Lords amendment No. 19 deals with both these problems.
Lords amendment No. 20, to the tailpiece to subsection (2), is a clarifying amendment. It is desired that a radio or television set should be exempt from licensing when it is connected either to a United Kingdom broadcasting station or to a foreign broadcasting station. However, this provision has been read by many to imply that connection


of a radio set to a foreign station was not exempt. Lords amendment No. 20 removes this implication and makes the intention clear.
Lords amendment No. 21 simply corrects a typographical error.

Mr. John McWilliam: Is the Minister certain that the amendment covers a relay station? It seems to me that if it were to cover a relay station, it would have to say "reception and transmission" by wireless telegraphy rather than just "transmission". By its nature, a relay station has to receive as well as to transmit.

Mr. Butcher: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Clause 7

POWER TO LICENSE SYSTEMS

Lords amendment: No. 22, in page 8, line 24, after "any" insert "telecommunication"

Mr. Butcher: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 23 to 27.

Mr. Butcher: These are all technical and drafting amendments.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 28, in page 9, line 26, leave out subsection (8).

Mr. Butcher: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 85, 94, 97 and 173.

Mr. Butcher: These amendments are designed to reduce to a single reference the provisions in the Bill which mention descriptions of the classes being framed by reference to "any circumstances whatever." They are therefore designed to improve the structure of the Bill and have no policy significance.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 8

SPECIAL PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO CERTAIN LICENCES

Lords amendment: No. 29, in page 10, line 16 leave out from "against" to "and" in line 20 and insert
particular persons or persons of any class or description (including, in particular, persons in rural areas) as respects any service provided, connection made or permission given in pursuance of such conditions as are mentioned in the foregoing paragraphs (whether in respect of the charges or other terms or conditions applied or otherwise);

Mr. Kenneth Baker: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords amendment No. 32.

Mr. Baker: The purpose of Lords amendment No. 29 is to strengthen further the safeguards in the Bill for people living in rural areas. As such, I hope that it will be welcomed by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides

of the House, even by the elderly grandmother of my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), who does not even live in a rural area.
The Government wish to safeguard the interests of those living in rural areas. We have no doubt about the importance of telecommunications service to people in rural and remote communities. It helps them keep in touch socially with each other and with people in towns. It helps them do many of the items of business such as ordering goods and arranging services which could involve them in quite difficult travelling. That is why we have included provisions in the Bill to safeguard services to rural areas. Clause 3, for example, places a fundamental duty on the Secretary of State and the Director to ensure that telecommunications services are provided throughout the United Kingdom to meet all reasonable demands for them, including especially those in rural areas.
11.15 pm
This is the first time that the interests of rural areas have been recognised in telecommunications legislation. However, in another place there was pressure to strengthen the safeguards further to ensure that people in rural areas are not discriminated against solely because they live in rural areas, particularly in respect of prices. We accepted the force of those arguments and this amendment is the result.
It may be helpful if I explain briefly how it will work. As the House knows, clause 8(1) lists the conditions that must be included in licences before an operator can be designated as a public telecommunications operator. PTOs will comprise the main operators, including BT, which. I appreciate is the main focus of attention, but also Mercury and Hull. Therefore, in effect the Bill provides that BT's licence must contain the conditions listed in clause 8(1). Clause 8(1)(d) already contains a provision preventing undue discrimination. Amendment No. 29 spells out explicity that BT's and other PTO's licences must contain a condition requiring the operator not to show undue preference to, or to exercise undue discrimination against persons of any class or description, including, in particular, persons in rural areas, in respect of any service provided or connections made.
Amendment No. 29 goes on to say that this prohibition on undue discrimination must apply not only to charges and terms and conditions but also in other respects as well. That makes it clear that the obligation not to discriminate unduly applies not only to the provision of service but also to charges made for the service and the use of the services provided.
Connections made or permission given
makes it quite clear that the obligation applies to installation, maintenance and usage. The amendments will be to the benefit of those living in rural areas and I commend them to the House.

Mr. Ewing: We have had debates about the need to protect services in rural areas before and the arguments have been well rehearsed. One question that we continually ask and to which, equally continually, we do not receive an answer, concerns the possible demand to be placed on local authorities as a result of clause 84. It lays down that in future where local authorities—in Scotland it would be the regional, district and island authorities —wish to have an additional telephone or telecommunications service, or wish to preserve an existing telephone or telecommunications service for the benefit of that area,


they will be empowered to contribute or to make good the losses sustained by the particular telephone company, whether that company is Mercury — that is a remote possibility—or whether the company is BT plc—that is a distinct possibility.
Will the Minister give the House and the local authorities, which are particularly hard-pressed as a result of the Government's cuts in public expenditure, an absolute assurance that at no time in future will they be asked to contribute to the cost of maintaining the services in the rural areas? If what lies ahead is that the islands and district councils in the rural areas are to be asked to sustain the telephone service in their areas, the guarantees and promises that are being made by the Minister tonight are simply not worth the paper on which they are written. The Director General of Oftel, Mercury and BT plc are under an obligation to provide services where it is reasonably practical to do so. Of course, that will give a fair leeway to the companies concerned. My great fear is that clause 84 will mean that local authorities, through the ratepayers, will sustain the rural service, otherwise why is clause 84 in the Bill? This will fall not on the Government or the telephone companies, whether it be BT plc or Mercury, and we know that Mercury is interested only in the intercity trunk roads in any case. It will fall on the local authorities through the ratepayers, and the remote areas of the United Kingdom will bear heavily the cost of sustaining these services in rural areas.
I hope that the Minister will give us a specific assurance that the local authorities in those areas will not be asked under clause 84 to contribute to the costs of the services in the rural areas.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: The Minister has heard me speak on several occasions about rural telephone services. In the course of those exchanges he has on several occasions indicated his awareness of my constituency—not only the enjoyment that he has derived from spending holidays there, but his recognition of the difficulties that my constituency and similar parts of Britain may face as a result of the measure and his repeated desire to try to safeguard it.
That being the case, it is interesting to note that the Government have suddenly accepted that the addition that the other place has written into the Bill is to be welcomed, having said time and again that no such addition was necessary, because the Bill, as originally drafted, safeguarded rural telephone services and needed no further amendment or elaboration. That was to be ensured because of the good will and sense of the Minister and of the regime that will exist after BT is privatised, which would safeguard rural services. It is interesting to note how the Minister and the Government now so warmly embrace the measure that was imposed upon them by the upper House. I am glad that the Minister embraces this amendment, but it leaves hon. Members who argued about rural services deeply suspicious of the motives, methods and sense of priority of the Government in the first place.
In consideration of rural telephone services, the important point about differential charging remains. We still have to look to the Minister to confirm that BT plc will not simply enjoy a carte blanche on differential charging. It is incumbent upon the Minister to point out forcibly to the House again, I hope more persuasively than before

—obviously more persuasively than his opposite number in another place was able to do — that, when privatisation takes place, it will not inevitably result in the outcome that many people fear — not just hon. Members, but those concerned about the implications of the Bill—that the Mercuries or Hulls of this world will be able to buy or operate in a lucrative market, be it London, Leicester or Leeds, with no interest in the much less lucrative market of the rural areas. One recalls the threat last time the Bill was debated. Given the additional safeguard that the other place has written in, it remains a possibility that the consumers and clients in rural areas will be faced with higher servicing charges and a lower quality of service from what remains of BT plc, which will be left with the less profitable and less commercially attractive part of the network. As a result, it will have fewer profits to churn into them.
When the Minister refers to clause 3 and rural areas, he should explain why he is also defending and embracing an amendment introduced in the other place when he has said all along that no such amendment or addition was necessary. That is the contradiction in the Government's argument. Local authorities, particularly in the Highlands and Islands, which have corresponded with me at length on this subject, have been at pains to point out that contradiction. I hope that the Minister will say why they were wrong when I raised their objections earlier, and why —even though he accepts the amendments made to the Bill—he still feels that they have nothing to fear. I hope that the Minister will respond to that point.
However, it remains to be seen whether the safeguards will be as strong as we would wish, and whether this thoroughly rotten piece of legislation on rural telephone services will be any better as a result of the mild safeguards, which we welcome, which were written into the Bill in the other place.

Mr. Golding: I should point out to the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) that the Minister is very good at making the best of a bad job. He always looks content, even at his darkest hour. Month in, month out, we faced that Laurel and Hardy team, and it was obvious that the Minister was Oliver—content and happy despite all adversity.
Like, no doubt, the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), I was delighted when the Minister eulogised the virtues of legislating specifically for rural areas. I was pleased, because it meant that all the letters sent by the Post Office Engineering Union, the Union of Communication Workers and the British Telecommunications Union Committee to the women's institutes, the National Farmers Union and the parish councils had led him to accept something that his officials, at a very early stage, had told him to resist. It is one "Resist" that has changed into "Accept with charm, as though one had wanted it all the time." Yet we know that the Minister fought hard not only for months, but for years, against making a special case for the rural areas. Now he has had to succumb.
I warn the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye, who is already a little suspicious of the Minister, not to be taken in by the Minister's smile or by his confident look and confiding manner. Incidentally, if the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Sir W. Clark) wishes to lounge, he may find the Embankment more to his taste. Despite the Minister's confiding manner, he has not told us what he


is going to put in the licence. The way in which the legislation works will not depend on last-minute acceptance of amendments. What happens in the rural areas will depend on whether substantial changes are made to the licence as a result of amendments made to the legislation.
The Minister should be telling us not that he has been converted on the road to Damascus, but how he has changed the licence since the amendment was accepted in the other place. How will he ensure in the licence that maintenance and tariffs in the rural areas will be similar to those in the towns? Will telecommunications as well as telephone services in general be provided in rural areas? Having studied the licence, we know that rural areas will get a basic telephone service, but there is nothing in the licence—or there was not—to ensure that rural areas will receive the full telecommunications service. The Minister should tell us how in the licence he has improved services for rural areas. If he has not, what he has told us will be of no avail. If he has changed the terms of the licence, he should come clean and tell us precisely what he has done since the Bill was amended in another place.

Mr. Gerrard Neale: First, since my right hon. Friend has played a real part in liberalising and privatising British Telecom, its service to those in rural areas has dramatically improved over and above what it used to be. Secondly, any sensible and realistic person who lives in a rural area and who has read the Bill and my right hon. Friend's statements will draw the unavoidable conclusion that the protection that he will receive will be far greater than that which he is receiving under British Telecom's current regime.
A person who lives in a constituency such as mine knows only too well that in a scattered area he cannot possibly expect to get exactly the same standard of services as someone who lives in the middle of a town or city. It is ridiculous when Labour Members produce synthetic enthusiasm for the provision of services in rural areas similar to those provided in towns and cities. They know that it is utterly impracticable to try to do so. The protection that my right hon. Friend wishes to insert in the Bill goes as far as it is realistically possible to go to meet the requirements of those living in rural areas. He should be congratulated on seeking to put it in the Bill.

Mr. Ashdown: I did not intend to intervene until I heard the contributions of the hon. Members for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) and for Cornwall, North (Mr. Neale). The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme and, to a certain extent, my hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy), who were both involved in the Bill's consideration in Committee, gave a warmer welcome to the terms of the amendment than some with a colder eye might wish to do. It is right and proper that the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend should give it that welcome because we recognise that a good deal of pressure had to be put on the Minister to get him to agree to the introduction of the amendment that he now espouses with such enthusiasm. I look forward to hearing the reasons for his change of heart.
My right hon. and hon. Friends are happy to support the amendment because it is an improvement to the Bill, but it includes words that are dripping with conditionality. If one were rather meaner, they could be described as weasel

words. There are terms such as "undue preference" and "in particular". The hon. Member for Cornwall, North was right to say that the amendment declares a commitment that is not in the Bill. We need the commitment because BT is moving into private hands. When that process is completed, we shall not be able to question the Minister of the responsible Department of state on these matters. We shall not be so effective an instrument of safeguard as we have been in the past.

Mr. Neale: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that in the past BT has not had the same level of commitment and has not discharged its commitment in areas such as mine?

Mr. Ashdown: I recognise that that commitment has, from time to time, been lacking. But there are many examples of good Members of the House having been able to push BT locally. Many of the recent moves in BT, due to competition opening up, have brought about a beneficial aspect. That is, however, not the reason why we are going as far as we are going now.
The Minister said that the Government wish to safeguard the needs of rural areas. That safeguard will remain inadequately expressed. Nothing that could have been done under the original Bill could not now be done under the amended Bill. The wording of the amendment drips with conditionality, such as the word "undue". That must be defended by the Director General of Oftel and his tiny staff of only 50.
What the Government have said about increasing charges by RPI minus X per cent. will be equally applied throughout the country and will protect rural charges for the next five years. But what will happen after that? I do not envisage a significant differential rental or significant differential call and maintenance charges for rural areas within the next five years because they are protected from that, but what will happen then? The words in the amendment are so conditional and so much to be defended by the Director General, who will have more than enough to do, that I doubt whether the Bill will honour the Minister's magnificent rhetoric about the protection and safeguarding of rural services.
We may support the amendment, but with a good deal of scepticism.

Mr. Marlow: We have just heard rather a lot of special pleading. I found it a little disturbing and unsettling, and I expect that my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Sir W. Clark) feels much the same — [Interruption.] I am sure that he will disagree with me if he feels like doing so.
Let us return to Animal Farm—all animals are equal, except that pigs seem to be more equal than others. Why is it that in this legislation rural areas are more equal than urban areas? I am proud to represent an urban area I have no rural constituents. If there is to be no discrimination against
particular persons or persons of any class or description
why should that include especially persons in rural areas? If there is to be no discrimination, there is to be no discrimination. That is what the legislation means. Why do we have to qualify "no discrimination"? Why should we have a special privileged class—those who live in the leafy shires who are, perhaps, better breeched than my constituents — who must be looked after better than anyone else?

Mr. Kenneth Baker: With permission, I shall reply to some of the points that have been raised.
The hon. Members for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) and for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) chided me for accepting amendments from the Lords. When the Bill went down the corridor to another place, it was almost perfect. There were just one or two blemishes that needed to be brushed off and one or two hidden delights that have been burnished in another place.
If the Lords wanted, in Shakespeare's phrase
To gild refined gold … To throw a perfume on the violet",
I am not the person to object. I am fully justified in accepting these amendments because they are in the spirit of the whole thrust of the Government's legislation to ensure that services are protected in rural areas.
I draw the attention of the House to two of the clauses in the draft licence. Clause 25 provides for a uniform charge for maintenance for five years. For connection, provided that that takes less than 100 hours, again there is a uniform charge across the country for five years. That represents considerable protection.
One must appreciate that the first clause of the draft licence imposes a universal obligation. The hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) asked whether this measure was to pave the way to withering away that universal obligation to allow local authorities to take over BT's telecommunications services. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the measure does not do that. He must take my word for it. The Director General will be obliged to enforce that licence condition.
Specific obligations on rural services under clause 3 are being strengthened by the amendments. The obligations lie upon not only the Director General, but the Secretary of State.
The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) said that, because of the implementation of the Bill, the capacity of Members of Parliament to take up telecommunications matters on behalf of their constituents will be diminished. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. Since telecommunications ceased being dealt with as a Department and became a nationalised industry, the capacity of Members of Parliament to take up specific cases with the Secretary of State or, previously, the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications has diminished. That was the policy behind turning it into a nationalised industry. It will still be possible for an hon. Member to question the Secretary of State on whether he has discharged his responsibilities under clause 3. Hon. Members will be able to question in the same way as Ministers are presently questioned during Question Time and Adjournment debates and when hon. Members are sufficiently awkward to cause matters to be discussed on the Floor of the House.
The Bill greatly enhances the powers of our constituents. They will be able to complain directly to the Director General of Oftel instead of the Post Office Users National Council. Oftel has the only consumers' complaints body with powers of direction. A constituent could complain directly to that body, which would not only have to examine his or her complaint, but have the power to give a direction to remedy that complaint. As far as I am aware, that power of direction does not lie with any other consumer body in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Kennedy: I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's point about the Director General. Is not Oftel's central

problem the ability to attract skilled and talented manpower within the salary structure? Will that not render Oftel a good deal less useful and less important than the right hon. Gentleman would give credit for when defending the structure he is setting up in the Bill?

Mr. Baker: I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman. The effectiveness of Oftel is a key to the regime the Bill is setting up. We want to ensure that Oftel's personnel are suitably qualified and capable of fulfilling the considerable obligations placed upon them. In the past, we have thought that that could be done with a staff of about 50, but time will tell. I believe that will be the initial figure.
The Post Office Users National Council deals with many thousands of consumer complaints each year, with a staff level well below that figure. Oftel has much wider responsibilities than dealing with consumer complaints —the policing and regulation of a market which we want to become more competitive.

Mr. Ewing: I was anxious not to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman when he was explaining the point to the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy). I return to the point about clause 8 and the ability to ask local authorities to contribute to loss-making services. Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that under clause 8 there is no possibility that local authorities will be asked by British Telecom plc to contribute to a loss-making service in rural areas? We should get that statement on record because it is important.

Mr. Baker: I am saying that there is a universal obligation imposed by the licence and it is strengthened by the provisions of clause 3(2)(a). That is the background against which any derogation below that service has to be measured.
If BT said that it would not carry out telecommunication services in Ross, Cromarty and Skye, or any other remote part of the country, that would be in contravention of the licence and would lead to considerable pressure on the Secretary of State and the Director to ensure that the universal obligation is continued.
I think that the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye is more concerned about public call boxes which, collectively, lose a lot of money. The system that operates now will continue, but will be regularised by the lengthy condition 11 of the licence which spells out the procedure that must be followed if BT wishes to close a public call box. Various checks and balances are included in the procedure and knowledge of such a proposal must be spread widely throughout a community. Closure could not even be considered unless revenue from a box had fallen below a level that is to be agreed by the Director.
If, after the procedure has been followed, the Director decides that a box should be closed, it will be open to a local authority, if it wishes, to contribute to the cost of the phone box. Before Opposition Members relish that fact too much, they should bear in mind that such a system operates at present and only seven of the 77,000 call boxes are supported by local authorities in those circumstances —at a cost of less than £3,000 a year.
I understand the anxiety on this matter, but clause 84 allows, in extreme conditions, the possibility of a local authority deciding that a call box is so important to its


community that it will make a contribution to the running costs. The amendments improve the position for the rural areas.

Mr. Marlow: There is to be no discrimination against rural areas, but can my right hon. Friend assure the House that there will also be no discrimination against urban areas?

Mr. Baker: Yes. Under the licences granted under clause 8, public telecommunication operators must not show undue discrimination or preference. That is a comprehensive obligation to all subscribers.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Clause 9

PUBLIC TELECOMMUNICATION SYSTEMS

Lords amendment: No. 36, in page 11, line 7, at end insert—
(1A) An order under subsection (1) above shall not come into operation until after the end of the period of 28 days beginning with—

(a) the day on which copies of the order, and of the licence to which section 8 above applies, are laid before each House of Parliament; or
(b) if such copies are so laid on different days, the last of those days."

Mr. Kenneth Baker: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This is an important amendment. It was introduced in another place to meet what the Government felt was a legitimate concern about the role of Parliament in respect of the major licences to be issued under the Bill, and in particular the licence for BT. We accepted the view that Parliament should not stand aside and that there should be arrangements that allowed parliamentary scrutiny of that important licence, while preserving the independence of the Director General in carrying out his regulatory functions and the flexibility of the licence modification procedures—two features which are at the heart of the regulatory regime. This amendment to clause 9 is designed to meet these two objectives.
The effect of this amendment is to ensure that any order made by the Secretary of State under clause 9 for the purposes of designating as a PTO and operator, authorized to run his system by a licence to which clause 8 applies, must be laid before Parliament for at least 28 days before it can come into effect. This means that the privileges and powers that follow from PTO status will not be available to BT until the order takes effect at the end of this 28-day period. The amendment also provides that the order cannot come into effect until at least 28 days after the licence to which the order relates has been laid before Parliament.

Lords amendment No. 36 agreed to.

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion relating to the Telecommunications Bill (Allocation of Time), MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the order of this day, to put forthwith the Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

Clause 18

VALIDITY AND EFFECT OF ORDERS

Lords amendment: No. 80, in page 22, line 30, leave out from "final" to second "is" in line 31 and insert "or provisional order"

Mr. Kenneth Baker: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following:

Lords amendment: No. 81.

Lords amendment: No. 82A, in page 22, line 35, at end insert—
(5C) Where a duty is owed by virtue of subsection (5) above to any person—

(a) any breach of the duty which causes that person to sustain loss or damage; and
(b) any act which, by inducing a breach of that duty or interfering with its performance causes that person to sustain loss or damage and which is done wholly or partly for the purpose of achieving that result,

shall be actionable at the suit or instance of that person.
(5D) In any proceedings brought against any person in pursuance of subsection (5C)(a) above, it shall be a defence for him to prove that he took all reasonable steps and exercised all due diligence to avoid contravening the order.

and amendment (a) thereto in the name of the hon. Member for Newcastle under Lyme (Mr. Golding), at end insert—
' provided that no person shall be taken to have done an act wholly or partly for the purpose of causing loss or damage merely because he appreciated that such loss or damage would be a consequence of that act. A trade union shall not be liable under this section in respect of any act unless that act was authorised or endorsed by a responsible person for the purpose of causing such loss or damage. For the purposes of this section, "authorised or endorsed by a responsible person" shall have the same meaning as in section 15 of the Employment Act 1982.'

Lords amendments Nos. 83, 84 and 117.

Mr. Baker: This is a most important matter, and probably represents the most important change in the Bill since it went to the other House. I have asked the Solicitor-General to be present, because the amendments relate to a change in the law about industrial relations. It is a complex matter, and I am sure that the House will welcome the advice of the Solicitor-General when I invite him to reply to the debate.
The amendments strengthen the enforcement procedures in the Bill and give greatly increased protection to those who depend upon telecommunications. The Bill as it left this House had two important defects. First, no one apart from the Director General could sue an operator for damages or apply for an injunction requiring the operator to comply with a provisional order until after the order had been confirmed. That meant that there could be a delay of well over 28 days between the Director General making a provisional order and anyone damaged by the breach of the order being able to obtain any relief.
Second, the Bill made no provision for circumstances where the operator's failure—let us say, BT's failure— to comply with an enforcement order arose when he was doing his best to comply but the breach resulted from the deliberate action of someone else. As a result, there was no clear way of ensuring that those who were deliberately harmed would recover damages from those who actually caused the harm, and no adequate defence for operators


—the public telecommunications operators — who contravene their licence obligations through no fault of their own.
These amendments correct these defects. Amendments Nos. 80 and 81 mean that clause 18(5) will specify that:
The obligation to comply with a final order or provisional order is a duty owed to any person who may be affected by a contravention of it".
Therefore, as soon as a provisional order enters into force it must be obeyed. that is a significant change and represents a considerable strengthening of the powers of the Director General.
If it is not obeyed, the customers or potential customers who are denied service or are otherwise affected by the breach of the order can go to the courts to obtain an injunction requiring compliance, or can sue for damages. This applies even where the provisional order is subsequently modified or revoked. During the period when the provisional order is in force, its provisions must be obeyed. If the operator fails to comply with a provisonal order, anyone caused loss or damage by that failure can sue.
Lords amendment No. 82A ensures that anyone who suffers loss or damage as a result of the duty to comply with the enforcement order can sue the operator—for example, BT—who breached the duty and any person who acted deliberately to induce the breach or who interferred with the operator's duty to comply with the order. When the action is against someone who induced the breach or someone who interfered with the performance of the duty, the plaintiff will have to demonstrate that he has suffered loss or damage as a result of the breach of the duty to comply with the enforcement order and that the action was taken wholly or partly to achieve the resultant loss or damage.
I apologise to the House for the complexity of that legal statement, but it will recognise that such provisions are vital. In the past few months we have all been subjected to a campaign by the British Telecom unions committee which has spent hundreds of thousands of its members' money to sow the idea that privatisation will lead to a loss of essential telecommunications services. The papers have been full of advertisements of heavy hands taking away public call boxes, of rural areas without telephones and wires being cut by scissors labelled "Telecommunications Bill". One advertisement has included a full-page photograph of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, implying that he will personally attack BT. I only hope that, when the advertisement appears, such is the wish for accuracy in promoting the campaign, that my right hon. Friend's name will be spelt correctly.
The message has been that the Bill must include safeguards to ensure that rural areas and people who use call boxes will continue to receive services and that nobody in the privatised industry will be enable to cut off vital services. We entirely agree. The Bill has always contained safeguards and these amendments add to them. Nobody, management or worker, member of the telecommunications industry or outsider, will be able deliberately to cut off services to any telecommunication customer who is protected by a licence enforcement order without exposing himself to the risk of paying damages to the people who suffer loss or damage.
I appreciate that Opposition Members are worried about that. They claim that the Bill takes away from trade unions their right to strike. That is not so. Lords amendment No. 117 makes a substantial change to clause 45. The House will recall that that when the Bill left this House, clause 45, like the existing Telegraph Acts, contained the important provision that anyone engaged in the running of a public telecommunications system who intentionally prevented, delayed or interrupted the transmission or reception of a message committed a criminal offence, the maximum penalty for which was to be two years' imprisonment. That had been the law since the middle of the 19th century.
Opposition Members claimed repeatedly and loudly that that restricted the right of telecommunication workers to strike. They were right. We have listened to their complaints and made a significant change to clause 45. Although we were convinced that telecommunications were specially important to all aspects of modern life, and although we were sure that some special protections were needed for people who depend on telecommunications, we were uneasy about the idea of criminal penalties being applicable to those who go on strike. We therefore decided that if we amended clause 18 to give people who were deliberately damaged by trade union actions the right to damage and injunctions, we could take away the criminal penalties.
Amendment No. 117 therefore safeguards the right of unions to strike. It is wrong to say that it takes those rights away. Amendment No. 82A merely provides that if anyone, including a trade union, takes industrial action deliberately to damage anyone who depends on telecommunications, that person, whether a trade union, a firm or a private individual, exposes himself to being sued for damages.
In another place the Lord Advocate made it clear that the sense of amendment No. 82A is that it does not limit the ability of trade unions to take generalised strike action, provided that it is wholly for the purpose of achieving an increase in pay, or an improvement in conditions, and so on. However, it ensures that if a union takes action which induces a breach of an operator's duty—in this case let us say British Telecom—to comply with an enforcement order issued by the Director General of Oftel, and if the union's action was taken partly for the purpose of achieving the result of causing loss or damage to an individual, that individual can sue the union for damages.
12 midnight
As I said, the Solicitor-General will reply to the debate because this is very much a matter of legal definition, but it is appropriate for me, as the Minister responsible for the policy, to set out and to defend that policy.
The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) has tabled an amendment which seeks to weaken the protection that we are now building into the Bill. I cannot speak to it yet because he has not moved the amendment, but I can say that I know the arguments that he is likely to adduce because there has been correspondence——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It might help the Minister if I say that the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) need not move the amendment. It is being taken with amendment No. 80, so


the Minister, or anyone who wishes to take part in the debate, can mention all the amendments that I called out when the debate began.

Mr. Golding: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister is right to say that he knows my arguments. I have always let him know my views, and I have always pleaded with him to do the same.

Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman knows the arguments that I set out during the past 10 minutes.
This group of amendments changes significantly the trade union law relating to telecommunications activities. It eliminates the criminality of deliberate interception, which has worried the Opposition Members and some Conservative Members, but it introduces, in the circumstances I described, a liability to damages should an enforcement order be wilfully broken as a result of trade union action.
I strongly commend the amendments to the House. They represent a significant package which improves the enforcement arrangements in the Bill. I stress again the fact that the amendments ensure that trade unions will enjoy the right to strike, but at the same time they provide protection to individuals who depend on telecommunications and who may be damaged by the deliberate actions of telecommunications operators or their employees.

Mr. Golding: Whenever the Minister of State has a legal brief that he does not quite understand he always tells the House that it is a complex matter. It is perhaps for that reason that the first sentence of my notes reads, "The background to this amendment is complex."
The Minister of State told the House — I believe following the remorseless logic of my speech on Report — that the Government, after voting against this proposal at least three times, sneaked off to the other place and decided there to remove the criminality. I thank the Minister of State and the Solicitor-General for that. I have never relished a winter spent in Wormwood scrubs. However, I cannot thank the Minister for introducing a system of civil damages instead. The Government are saying to officials, such as myself, "You need not go to Wormwood scrubs, but you and your members will go instead to the debtors' prison after you have been bankrupted in the civil courts." As the Minister said, the Government have left a union open to civil actions when it is held to be its fault that the duty imposed by a licence is not fulfilled, thereby causing damage to a third party.
As the right hon. Gentleman will know, with the help of lawyers we have been discussing this matter for several weeks. The unions do not agree that there should be any liability' for civil actions. They believe that they should be free in all respects to engage in strike action, whether it is political or directed against particular customers. However, we know that Government policy is firm on this point and that we shall not persuade them to change it. My amendment does not attempt to do so. It attempts to deal only with the rights of a trade union to take industrial action to further its legitimate industrial interests of securing higher pay, improved conditions, and so on.

Mr. Marlow: Has not the hon. Gentleman uncharacteristically slipped up? This is not about where action interferes with the customer, but where the intention of that action is to interfere with the customer or potential customer. Is not that a great and important distinction?

Mr. Golding: That is what the Minister and I have been discussing for several weeks, with the help of lawyers. I hope that the Solicitor-General will forgive me, but with lawyers it is a question of paying your money and they take their choice.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: Wherein lies the equity when a union or union members, in pursuit of their own interests, may perhaps cause the bankruptcy of a private individual or company who may not sue for damages?

Mr. Golding: The equity lies in the fact that, so far as I am concerned, all people have the right to withdraw their labour, just as the firms that the hon. Gentleman has in mind have the right to withdraw their services. That leads us into philosophical discussion, but firms are able to withdraw their services to me. For example, doctors can knock me off their panel without let or hindrance. I could go on, but we should then be discussing freedom when we ought to be discussing telecommunications.

Mr. Marlow: Now answer the question.

Mr. Golding: I have answered the question, although, if I were to answer it fully, it would take a long time.
I know that I shall not persuade the Government or Conservative Back Benchers on this point. My amendment seeks only to make sure that unions have the right to strike for better pay and conditions without threat to their funds from civil actions. I believe that the Government agree that they should be able to do so. My argument is that the wording of the legislation is such that we cannot be certain that the unions will have that freedom.
The Minister got out of answering my amendment by saying that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would not let him answer it. When you said that he could, the right hon. Gentleman collapsed and floundered. The Minister of State thought he could get out of answering the amendment by appealing to the Chair, but you scuppered him, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You clobbered him in what I was about to describe as an unseemly fashion, but, of course, you could not possibly do that.
The Minister of State was hoping that the responsibility would be placed on the Solicitor-General to answer the amendment. The Minister of State came to the Dispatch Box and said, "I shall take the political responsibility", but he did not take the political responsibility of answering my amendment. He is leaving it instead to legal gobbledegook.
I come to the nub of the argument, and here I have to say that the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), for the first time in three years, made a relevant intervention. The whole nub of the argument is about how the word "purpose" will be interpreted in the courts. 'The hon. Member was right, and that shows there is hope for everybody in the House.
When a strike takes place, making it impossible for BT to fulfil a duty, the union is liable, if it can be proved that the act of inducement was done wholly or partly for the purpose of causing loss or damage. That is in the legislation. The difficulty is that all strikes cause loss or damage. That is inevitable. A union must assume that when loss or damage is caused to a customer, pressure will be placed on the employer. A strike does not take place to cause loss or damage to a customer. A strike takes place to persuade the employer to provide better conditions, to


pay more, and so on. However, when loss or damage is caused, an employer may be persuaded to pay out more readily.
The question for the Minister is one that he has fobbed off to the Solicitor-General. What is meant by "purpose" in such cases? What is the purpose? Is it to cause loss or damage to the customer and so entitle him to sue the union, or is it to persuade BT? If it is the latter, it makes the union immune. That is the nub of the argument, as rightly seen by the hon. Member for Northampton, North.
Our legal advisers tell us that the law can be interpreted either way. It is a toss-up. That is the advice we received from our solicitors and from counsel. They say that as the legislation is drafted, the interpretation can go either way. If we go before one judge, he may decide that we are subject to civil damages; if we go before another, he may decide that we are not. It is unsatisfactory that the Government are passing legislation that legal advisers are saying is ambiguous, unclear and uncertain. Perhaps it is forgivable if a Government do so not knowing what they are doing, but when, week in week out, we tell the Government that what they are doing is uncertain, they should clear up that uncertainty one way or the other.

Mr. Marlow: I defer to the hon. Gentleman's expertise and experience and ask his advice. Is he not on a wild goose chase? Is not the position that, without the amendment, the Post Office Engineering Union, should it feel so inclined, would be able to prevent the operation of any other telecommunications system of any other licensee? Does not the amendment mean that if it does so it will be actionable in the courts? Without this amendment, the Bill as it is could be worthless, because the idea of increasing competition and the diversity of telecommunications services could be obstructed by the POEU.

Mr. Golding: Wild geesing is out of season. I made it clear that my amendment would not have the consequence that the hon. Gentleman suggests. I said clearly that we do not like it, but we accept that Government policy is to make such actions actionable if they discriminate against the customer. We are not arguing about the amendment.
My amendment is to make it clear that we can take general industrial action, in particular in support of pay and conditions claims. Counsel and solicitors have got that point, and I do not think that the Minister will argue on that. We are trying to make certain that the Government's intentions are set out clearly in statute.
12.15 am
I am advised that a judge could follow the case of Chandler v. the Director of Public Prosecutions, or Emerald Construction v. Lowthian, in which it is stated that a person is taken to intend the natural consequences if he or she runs the risk of such consequences. In other words, if one causes loss or damage to a customer while trying to persuade BT, one must pay the consequences. The judge can look at these cases and say that whatever the person has done, the purpose was defined in a narrow way, and any action that was taken could subject that person to damages.
On the other hand, another judge could follow the case of Crofter, Harris Tweed v. Veitch, or Lonrho v. Shell or

Hadmor Production v. Hamilton, and that would be to the advantage of the union. Mr. Bryan Stanley, the general secretary of the POEU, has set these arguments down in a letter to the Minister. I shall quote for the record, because I am sure that the Solicitor-General has studied the letter from Mr. Stanley. These cases concern the tort of conspiracy that is frequently used in industrial relations. In Crofter, Harris Tweed v. Veitch, Viscount Simon said:
A question to be answered is not: 'Did the combiners appreciate, or should they be treated as appreciating, that others would suffer from their action?'; it is 'What is the real reason why the combiners did it?' or 'What is the real purpose of the combination?' The test is not what is the natural result to the Plaintiff of such combined action, or what is the resulting damage which the Defendants realise, or should realise, will follow, but what is in truth the object in the minds of the combiners when they acted as they did. It is not consequence that matters but purpose.
In other words, did the union set out to get more pay and better conditions, or did it set out to cause loss or damage to customers? That was reaffirmed by the House of Lords in Lonrho v. Shell, when it was held that an intent to injure was essential in the tort of conspiracy. It was re-emphasised in Hadmor Productions v. Hamilton when Lord Diplock said:
However misguided the purpose of ACTT in threatening the blacking may have been, that purpose was not to injure Hadmor however inevitably injury to Hadmor might be one result of the blacking.
The purpose of my amendment is to ensure that the courts follow the second rather than the first line of cases. My amendment uses the words "appreciate" and "consequence". Those words were used by Viscount Simon in the Crofter case. They were mentioned earlier and so should guide the courts in that direction.
My amendment covers another point. The Bill at present does not specify when a trade union will be liable under clause 18(8)(b). That means that the common law concepts of vicarious liability and agency will be brought to bear in deciding whether a trade union is liable for the acts of its officials and other members.
The purpose of my amendment is to eliminate the union's liability along the same lines as in section 15 of the Employment Act 1980. The common law concept of vicarious liability is drawn very widely and is likely to include a situation in which an official calls out members even if he or she is not authorised by the rules to do so. Under section 15 of the Employment Act, on the other hand, it is open to the executive council, president or general secretary to repudiate an action taken by anyone else who is not authorised by the rules to take such action.
It should be noted that section 15 does not automatically apply to the Bill in the same way as section 16 on limitation of damages. Section 15 is limited to the three torts specified therein—intimidation, inducing breach of contract and conspiracy—whereas section 16 refers to any proceedings in tort.
I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to put that on the record. This is a very important subject. It would be tragic if in the months to come it was found in the courts that what the Government intended had not come to pass. It would be tragic if it was not found that in reality, because of the threat of civil action to the funds of trade unions, the union had effectively lost the right to strike in cases where the dispute was about pay and conditions of service.
In my view, the Minister has acted in good faith, but he has not gone far enough in making certain that the law is clear.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: I appreciate the arguments that the hon. Gentleman has adduced. They have been set out in two long letters to me by Mr. Brian Stanley and the chairman of the BTUC, to which I have replied at considerable length today.
I shall let my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General deal with some of the legal argumentation on the cases that were quoted, but I remind the hon. Gentleman of a question put to him my my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) to which the hon. Gentleman has not really addressed himself. My hon. Friend asked what was the equity in allowing a union total immunity when by its action it intended to cause damage that could drive a person or company into bankruptcy. What is the equity in that? The net result of the amendment would be to establish that position.

Mr. Golding: I do not believe that the amendment is addressed to that. This is our advice. It is not an argument that I have dreamt up; it is an argument based on the advice of counsel and solicitors. The amendment is addressed to a situation in which action is taken not with the purpose of causing loss or damage to the firm involved, but to improve its employees' pay and conditions.
There may be circumstances when, in an argument between a trade union and an employer, a third party gets hurt. That, historically, has been the case. Then the responsibility is as much on the employer as on the trade union. But in arguments between commercial organisations, third parties can be damaged. That is a risk that one takes in the free economy. My amendment is directed not to the point that the Minister and the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) made about what happens if the union deliberately sets out to smash a private firm, but to the situation that exists when a union sets out to negotiate better pay and conditions from the employer and the employer is adamant in his refusal to grant them.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: I note what the hon. Gentleman says, but we are considering the provision of a monopoly service and members of the general public seeking satisfaction elsewhere, whether in transport or something else. If a monopoly service is withdrawn, it can damage ordinary members of the public and that is what is important. It is the duty of the House to try to protect the individual and the individual company against the situation which arises in monopoly industries. Will the hon. Gentleman comment on that?

Mr. Golding: That is not the Government's position. As I understand the Government's position, if the union sets out deliberately to smash a company or to take political action, it is to be subject to action in the civil courts. The Government's position, as set out in letters, is that if the union sets out to process a normal industrial claim, it shall not be subject to action in the civil courts. I shall listen with interest to the Solicitor-General. All the Minister's statements to the union have been to the effect that the Government do not want to take away the normal right to strike or to make normal industrial action subject to action in the civil courts. The argument between us is one not of principle, but of definition. It is about writing into the Act the right words to achieve that.
I think that the Solicitor-General will say what the Government have said to us for weeks. He will tell us not to worry. That is what the Government said on the first occasion, and then they introduced an amendment. Then they said that there was no difference between us, but they thought that the wording of the legislation was sufficient to do what we wanted. The argument raised by the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills is an entirely different one from that of the Minister. I understand the hon. Gentleman's difficulties because the Government have decided to keep a virtual monopoly in telecommunications when previously they promised competition. Of course, there is a difficulty when there is a monopoly. That is a difficult dilemma to solve in the private sector.
12.30 am
It is one of the problems that have arisen because the Minister has created a private monopoly. If the union could be subject to civil damages, having taken action against the employer and hurt a customer, that would mean effectively that the union could not take industrial action. It would be faced with a private monopoly employer and, as such, virtually a private monopoly employer of telecommunications skills as well. The union would be faced with a private monopoly employer against which it could not take industrial action. In those circumstances, where is the equality of bargaining? The employer would try always to resist wage claims and improvement in conditions. If the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills were to get his way, the union could never take action against the employer for fear of being made bankrupt through action in the civil courts. There is a difference in position between the hon. Gentleman and the Minister.

Mr. Marlow: As I understand it, there are two parts to the amendment. The first part states that if the employee, or group of employees, realises that what is being done could cause damage, that is not to say that it is the intention to cause damage. On this question, the House will hear from my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General. The second part of the amendment says that, if damage is caused through unofficial action, that shall not be actionable in court. Does the hon. Gentleman intend to come to that point?

Mr. Golding: That is to put it on a par with other unions, and that is reasonable. However, it is unreasonable to say that a union is to be subjected to civil damages for acts that it has not authorised. That makes the running of a union almost impossible. If a group of union members decide that their purpose is to bankrupt the union, they can do so, but it would be intolerable. All legislation has recognised that if one is to be able to sue a union, at least the people who have taken the decision must be those in the union authorised to do so. For that reason, the second part of the amendment is included. When the Solicitor-General speaks, he will say that in his view one set. of opinions will have greater weight than the other set of opinions. I look forward to hearing the Solicitor-General. We have paid our money to one lot, so we may as well get some free advice from the other.

Mr. Ewing: I am glad that the Minister changed his mind about leaving the Chamber, because I wish to take him to task for his criticism of the BTUC, and the advertisements that it ran throughout the campaign against privatisation. Given his usual fairness, I thought that he


might have been a little more even-handed and taken British Telecom to task for the expenditure of hundreds of thousands of pounds of customers' money without the permission of the customers. At least BTUC spends its members' money with the full permission of its members. I am not aware of Sir George Jefferson or anyone else asking the permission of BT's customers to spend the hundreds and thousands of pounds that it has spent on its advertising campaign.
I hope that the Solicitor-General will accept that the issue must be tested on one or two points. First, we must test whether the POEU is treated in the same way as all other trade unions under section 15 of the 1980 Act. Under the clause as amended—and we accept that the criminal aspect of taking industrial action has been removed, although the civil consequences are definitely still there — the POEU is clearly treated differently from other trade unions. As the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) said, the difference is that vicarious responsibility would lie with the POEU or any other union involved in the telecommunications industry if any union members took unofficial action. That would be so regardless of whether, for example, the president and general secretary of the POEU repudiated that unofficial action. The Solicitor-General is bound to accept that the POEU is being treated differently from all other trade unions and in that event my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) has proved our case beyond any shadow of doubt and the Minister must accept our argument.
The issue must also be tested in relation to purpose and consequence. Although I have more than 30 years' experience of the trade union movement, I have never known a trade union or any of its members set out to damage a company beyond repair or to bankrupt it. Trade unions seek to improve the pay and conditions of their members. We all know what happens. Negotiations take place, and sometimes they break down. Sometimes the union decides to withdraw its members' labour, not in order to bankrupt the company, but to emphasise the arguments for the company being able to pay those increases, and so on. I should point out to the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) that both the employer and the trade union have a responsibility. One party, the union, argues that the company can afford to pay, while the other, the company, argues that it cannot afford to pay. Both seek to prove their point, but neither sets out to damage the company.
All the cases cited by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme show that case law is on our side. The Solicitor-General must accept that. In all the cases that my hon. Friend cited, the ruling is clear. It must be proved that it was the original intention to set out to damage the company as a result. In all these cases, some of which were considered by Viscount Salmon and Lord Diplock, it is made clear that that must be proved. In none of the cases was judgment given that it was the intention to damage the company. Therefore, damages were not awarded.
The issue will stand or fall on the two tests to which I have referred. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme so rightly says, the amendment does not seek to amend what the Government have done in moving two thirds of the way to the position that we want them to adopt. We are seeking to take the

Government the remaining third of the way forward and clarify their intention by accepting the amendments which were introduced in another place.
I hope that the Solicitor-General will base his reply on two tests. First, will employees in the telecommunications industry and members of the Post Office Engineering Union, for example, be treated in the same way under section 15 of the 1980 Act as the members of all other trade unions? The answer now is clearly and unequivocally no. The Solicitor-General has a legal obligation to correct that anomaly and the amendment gives him the opportunity to do so.
The second test is the consequence and intent argument. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman draws on the case law on which my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme has drawn, he must come to the conclusion that the consequence and intent argument comes out strongly in favour. This will possibly be the last opportunity for a long time to correct the anomaly and I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not miss it. I trust that he will correct the anomaly once and for all so that at least the Post Office Engineering Union is treated in the same way as all other trade unions under section 15 of the 1980 Act.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): My right hon. Friend the Minister for Information Technology has explained the objective of the Government's group of amendment's and the amendment of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) must be considered in the light of that, especially when considering whether the objective is achieved. The Government's purpose is to safeguard the proper interests of those who are users of telecommunications services by protecting the security of their supply.
A good deal has been said in the course of the Bill's passage through the House about the importance of these services to many people. Those concerned are not always the most profitable customers, but the Government agree that proper safeguards for those services should be provided.
When the Bill left this House, as my right hon. Friend said, the means by which the interests of users were safeguarded against interruption was a criminal sanction. Clause 45 reproduced, in effect, the criminal sanction that has been in the telegraph Acts for about the past 100 years. That sanction was very unpopular. A good deal was said about it in Committee, as I know from the occasion when I was invited to explain the circumstances in which it would apply. Whether or not my appearance in Committee on that occasion had anything to do with it, the Government later considered the matter and concluded that the criminal sanction for preventing, delaying or interrupting telecommunications messages could properly be withdrawn. Clause 45 is therefore substantially amended by amendment No. 117. The criminal sanction remains only for the intentional modifications or interference with the contents of a message. There is an element there of deceit or fraud, and most people would say that that still warrants a criminal sanction.
12.45 am
With the criminal sanction removed from all other acts which, in breech of an order of the Director General of Oftel, either prevent, delay or interrupt the transmission of a message or induce such interference, the user of telecommunications services should not be left wholly


unprotected. With criminal liability removed, civil liability had to be substituted, otherwise there would be no sanction. A remedy had to exist in the form of an action for damages.
The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme fairly said that although he did not like the policy, he would not be so unrealistic as to suppose that the Government would be moved from it. The House is grateful for that realism. This is where we come to the crux of the debate. It is common ground between the Opposition and the Government and between the union and my right hon. Friend, that that civil liability should not be used to the total exclusion of the immunity that protects those who have, in contemplation or furtherance of a trades dispute, sought to interfere with the performance of a commercial contract.
That would be to go too far, and it would discriminate unnecessarily against those employed by operators of telecommunications systems. They should not be stopped from taking all industrial action — for example, in support of a pay claim. The Government do not intend that they should be, as the hon. Gentleman fairly acknowledged. Mr. Chamberlain, the secretary to the British Telecom unions committee, also fairly acknowledges that that is not the Government's intention.
The Government intend that when an operator is under a duty to comply with an order of the Director General, and somebody either induces a breach of that duty or interferes with its performance with the purpose of achieving the result that loss or damage is sustained by the person to whom that duty is owed, the Government say that he should face the consequences. What will be those consequences? He will be liable to compensate the person who has sustained the loss or damage by reason of what was done.
That should apply whether the act was done wholly with that purpose or only partly with that purpose, provided that that purpose was present. That is the Government's intention, and anything less would fail properly to protect the structure by which the Bill's provision enables the Director General to require that an operator's duty to telecom users, as set out in the conditions of the licence, shall be discharged. The Director General is, as it were, the policeman of the conditions of that licence.

Mr. Ewing: Does the Solicitor-General agree that the purpose to which he referred would have to be proved as part of the civil action? Does he further agree that in none of the cases on record—he may correct me on this—was it proved that the purpose was to set out deliberately to damage the company? If there is no case law to support the Solicitor-General, why is he basing his argument so heavily on the conclusion that he appears to be drawing?

The Solicitor-General: It is absolutely right that the burden of proof lies with the claimant. If there are few occasions on which such a burden has been discharged, there is little about which the Opposition can complain. It is important to bear in mind that the burden lies with those who claim that they have been injured and claim damages. The operator himself is already under a statutory duty once an enforcement order is made. That duty gives rise to an action for damages at the suit of anyone who sustains loss or damage through its breach. But that would be

insufficient protection if a third party can cause an operator to breach his duty to comply with the order, and the third party is not liable to damages.
Government amendment No. 82A sets out to impose liability on the third party, and it achieves just that aim and no more. It does so by identifying a specific result which it must have been the defendant's sole or part purpose to achieve. "Result" is the key word. That result is the sustaining of loss or damage by the person to whom, under the enforcement order of the Director General, the operator owed a duty by means of inducing a breach of the operator's duty or interfering with his performance. The result places the burden on the plaintiff—the user—to show that it was with that sole or part purpose the defendant did the act complained of.
It will not be sufficient to show that the defendant merely intended the act in the sense that he knew that such loss would be the inevitable or likely result of what he was reckoning to do—for example, when striking for more pay. That loss or damage must be shown to be the thing, or one of the things, he was setting out to do.
I shall give the other side of the coin. It will not be a defence that the defendant's main purpose is to secure improved terms of employment, if his purpose includes a desire to bring about the breach of the order and thereby to cause loss to the customer. In that case, he will be liable. — [Interruption.] I know that this is not exhilarating stuff at 12.50 am, but it is important to the Government's case in answer to the amendment.
"Purpose" is the key word to amendment No. 82A. I cite a dictum of Lord Diplock in Sweet v. Parsley decided in 1969. It states:
Purpose connotes an intention by some person to achieve a result desired by him.
The use of the word "purpose" in the amendment therefore identifies a particular result which the defendant must have intended to achieve if he is to be liable. The result must be that a person would be deprived of the service, not an improvement of working conditions.
I must deal with a contrary view that has been fairly expressed by the hon. Members for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) and for Newcastle-under-Lyme—that the word "purpose" includes the natural and probable consequences that the person appreciates will probably flow from his act regardless of whether they are desired. My view, and that expressed by my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate in the other place, is that that belief does not give sufficient weight to the speech of Lord Simon in the Crofter Harris Tweed case, to which reference has been made, on the meaning of the word "purpose" when assessing the interpretation that the courts would apply to this clause. He states:
That word directs us—at any rate in the economic torts of which this is one—to the real reason for the act being done.
Purpose has been consistently construed in that sense in numerous cases of economic torts, including recent cases. I have already cited Lord Diplock's dictum.
The union's opinion effectively contends that that interpretation is not to be relied upon, because it was unnecessary to the real issue in that case and was obiter dictum. That is not the case. Before the conviction could be upheld it would be essential to determine that miss Sweet, the defendant in that case, had intended that relevant purpose.
There is a high-water mark to the union's case, and that may be found in the Chandler case, which was decked in


1962. That was a criminal case, in very special circumstances under the Official Secrets Act 1911, in which the defendants denied that their subjective object was prejudicial to the state, and sought to prove it. It was held that the royal prerogative was involved and that the ultimate motive of the defendants in a criminal case was irrelevant. That case can be authority for the meaning of "purpose" only in the highly specialised context of section 1 of the Official Secrets Act. As Lord Radcliffe said in that case:
Lawyers must do the best they can to find what its content is in the context of this Act.
The Government are, accordingly, confident that, in the context of the Bill, amendment No. 82A meets the objective that I have described. The first part of the amendment of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme is unnecessary, because amendment No. 82A does not create liability for any loss or damage that was the intended but incidental result or the natural consequence of the actions taken. The second part is actively harmful and incompatible with the Government's objective, because it would confer too much protection on unions which could repudiate individual actions by union officials or members and thereby deny remedies to those who are damaged by breaches of the licence conditions induced by wildcat action.
It is because the Government consider that the secure provision of and access to telecommunications services are so important that they believe it right to make this special provision. They thought it right to withdraw the criminal sanctions, but they also believe this proposal to be right.

Mr. Marlow: If damage were caused and intended by unofficial action, who would find themselves in court? If that action were taken by men of straw with no assets or resources, what would be the result of the court action? Would responsibility fall on the main union?

The Solicitor-General: The Opposition's amendment says—'A trade union shall not be liable in respect of any act unless it was authorised or endorsed by a responsible person for the purpose of causing loss or damage.' It would be easy for whoever authorises action to say that he authorised the act, but not for the purpose of causing damage to the user of a telecommunication service. It was because that would afford so ready a let-out that the Government felt that it could not be admitted and that therefore the ordinary rules should apply. The unions have a remedy in their own hands, since they can readily take steps to ensure that their members fully understand when strike action is authorised.
I think that I have answered the two particular questions that I was asked. Of course, I do not argue that the opinion put forward on behalf of the union has no basis. It is seldom that in any matter of drafting one can say that no contrary argument can be put about its interpretation. However, if it does not seem arrogant to say so, the far better view is the one that the Lord Advocate and I have expressed. We did not pluck that view out of the air. We reached it by reference to the decided cases.
As to whether the union is being treated in a different way, unions have been treated in a separate way under the Telegraph Acts for the past 100 years, by virtue of the criminal sanction. The Government have thought it right

to remove that, but the unions cannot be treated in exactly the same way, because of the importance of the telecommunication services.
The Labour Government did not withdraw the criminal sanction when they had the opportunity. A Tory Government have done that, so let it not be said that we are manifesting some malicious intent.
I hope that, notwithstanding the lateness of the hour and the turgid prose in which my argument has been expressed, hon. Members have been able to follow it and will acknowledge that the amendment of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme should not be accepted.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 82A, in page 22, line 35, at end insert—
(5C) Where a duty is owed by virtue of subsection (5) above to any person—

(a) any breach of the duty which causes that person to sustain loss or damage; and
(b) any act which, by inducing a breach of that duty or interfering with its performance causes that person to sustain loss or damage and which is done wholly or partly for the purpose of achieving that result,

shall be actionable at the suit or instance of that person.
(5D) In any proceedings brought against any person in pursuance of subsection (5C)(a) above, it shall be a defence for him to prove that he took all reasonable steps and exercised all due diligence to avoid contravening the order.

Read a Second time.

Amendment proposed to the Lords amendment, at end insert
' provided that no persons shall be taken to have done an act wholly or partly for the purpose of causing loss or damage merely because he appreciated that such loss or damage would be a consequence of that act. A trade union shall not be liable under this section in respect of any act unless that act was authorised or endorsed by a responsible person for the purpose of causing such loss or damage. For the purposes of this section, "authorised or endorsed by a responsible person" shall have the same meaning as in section 15 of the Employment Act 1982.' —[Mr. Golding.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 155, Noes 224.

Division No. 239]
[1 am


AYES


Alton, David
Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Cook, Frank (Stockton North)


Ashdown, Paddy
Corbett, Robin


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Corbyn, Jeremy


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Cowans, Harry


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Craigen, J. M.


Barron, Kevin
Crowther, Stan


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Dalyell, Tam


Beith, A. J.
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)


Bell, Stuart
Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)


Benn, Tony
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Deakins, Eric


Bermingham, Gerald
Dewar, Donald


Blair, Anthony
Dixon, Donald


Boyes, Roland
Dormand, Jack


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Dubs, Alfred


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Duffy, A. E. P.


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Eastham, Ken


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Ellis, Raymond


Campbell, Ian
Evans, John (St. Helens N)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Ewing, Harry


Canavan, Dennis
Fatchett, Derek


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Clarke, Thomas
Fisher, Mark


Clay, Robert
Flannery, Martin


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Coleman, Donald
Forrester, John






Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)
Nellist, David


Foster, Derek
Nicholson, J.


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
O'Brien, William


George, Bruce
O'Neill, Martin


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Parry, Robert


Godman, Dr Norman
Patchett, Terry


Golding, John
Pavitt, Laurie


Gould, Bryan
Pendry, Tom


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Penhaligon, David


Harman, Ms Harriet
Pike, Peter


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Prescott, John


Haynes, Frank
Randall, Stuart


Heffer, Eric S.
Redmond, M.


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Richardson, Ms Jo


Hoyle, Douglas
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Robertson, George


Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Rowlands, Ted


John, Brynmor
Ryman, John


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Sedgemore, Brian


Kennedy, Charles
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Kirkwood, Archibald
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Leadbitter, Ted
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Leighton, Ronald
Skinner, Dennis


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)


Litherland, Robert
Snape, Peter


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Soley, Clive


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Spearing, Nigel


McCartney, Hugh
Steel, Rt Hon David


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Stott, Roger


McGuire, Michael
Strang, Gavin


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


McKelvey, William
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


McNamara, Kevin
Tinn, James


McTaggart, Robert
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Marek, Dr John
Wareing, Robert


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Welsh, Michael


Martin, Michael
White, James


Maxton, John
Wigley, Dafydd


Maynard, Miss Joan
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Meacher, Michael
Winnick, David


Meadowcroft, Michael
Woodall, Alec


Michie, William
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Mikardo, Ian



Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe and


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
 Mr. John McWilliam


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)





NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Boyson, Dr Rhodes


Alexander, Richard
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Amess, David
Bright, Graham


Ancram, Michael
Brinton, Tim


Arnold, Tom
Brittan, Rt Hon Leon


Ashby, David
Brooke, Hon Peter


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Browne, John


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Bruinvels, Peter


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Budgen, Nick


Baldry, Anthony
Bulmer, Esmond


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Butcher, John


Batiste, Spencer
Butterfill, John


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Carlisle, John (N Luton)


Bellingham, Henry
Carttiss, Michael


Bendall, Vivian
Chalker, Mrs Lynda


Benyon, William
Chapman, Sydney


Berry, Sir Anthony
Chope, Christopher


Best, Keith
Churchill, W. S.


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Bottomley, Peter
Cockeram, Eric


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Colvin, Michael


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Conway, Derek





Coombs, Simon
Moynihan, Hon C.


Cope, John
Neale, Gerrard


Couchman, James
Newton, Tony


Crouch, David
Nicholls, Patrick


Dicks, Terry
Norris, Steven


Dorrell, Stephen
Onslow, Cranley


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Oppenheim, Philip


Dover, Den
Ottaway, Richard


du Cann, Rt.Hon Edward
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Dunn, Robert
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Durant, Tony
Parris, Matthew


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Patten, John (Oxford)


Emery, Sir Peter
Pawsey, James


Evennett, David
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Fallon, Michael
Powell, William (Corby)


Farr, John
Powley, John


Forman, Nigel
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Fox, Marcus
Proctor, K. Harvey


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Raffan, Keith


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Rathbone, Tim


Glyn, Dr Alan
Renton, Tim


Goodlad, Alastair
Rhodes James, Robert


Gregory, Conal
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Grist, Ian
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Grylls, Michael
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Gummer, John Selwyn
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Hanley, Jeremy
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Hayes, J.
Rost, Peter


Hayward, Robert
Rowe, Andrew


Henderson, Barry
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Ryder, Richard


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Sayeed, Jonathan


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Holt, Richard
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Howard, Michael
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)
Shersby, Michael


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Silvester, Fred


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Skeet, T. H. H.


Key, Robert
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lamont, Norman
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Lang, Ian
Speed, Keith


Latham, Michael
Spencer, Derek


Lawler, Geoffrey
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Squire, Robin


Lightbown, David
Stanbrook, Ivor


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Stanley, John


Lord, Michael
Stern, Michael


Luce, Richard
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Lyell, Nicholas
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


McCrindle, Robert
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Macfarlane, Neil
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


MacGregor, John
Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)


Maclean, David John
Stokes, John


McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Madel, David
Sumberg, David


Major, John
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Malins, Humfrey
Temple-Morris, Peter


Malone, Gerald
Terlezki, Stefan


Marland, Paul
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Marlow, Antony
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Mates, Michael
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Mather, Carol
Thornton, Malcolm


Maude, Hon Francis
Thurnham, Peter


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Tracey, Richard


Mellor David
Twinn, Dr Ian


Merchant, Piers
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Waddington, David


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Mitchell, David (NW Hants)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Moate, Roger
Walden, George


Monro, Sir Hector
Waller, Gary


Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Watson, John


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Watts, John






Wells, Bowen (Hertford)
Wood, Timothy,


Wells, John (Maidstone)
Woodcock, Michael


Wheeler, John
Yeo, Tim


Whitfield, John
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Whitney, Raymond



Winterton, Mrs Ann
Tellers for the Noes:


Winterton, Nicholas
Mr. Michael Neubert and


Wolfson, Mark
 Mr. Tim Sainsbury.

Question accordingly negatived.

Lords amendment No. 82A agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 82, in page 22, line 35, at end insert—
(5A) Where a final order has been made or a provisional order has been confirmed, any contravention of a condition of the licence to which it applies, which occurred prior to that order taking effect and which would have been in breach of the duty owed by virtue of subsection (5) above had that order then been in force, shall be actionable with the prior consent in writing of the Director at the suit or instance of any person who has suffered loss or damage as a result of that contravention.
(5B) In any proceedings brought against any person in pursuance of subsection (5A) above, it shall be a defence for him to prove that he took all such reasonable steps and exercised all due diligence to avoid contravening the condition of the licence in question.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy speaker: With this we may take Government amendments (a) to (h) in lieu thereof, Lords amendment No. 61 and the Government amendment (a) thereto.

Mr. Baker: There are some 12 Lords amendments—Nos. 58 to 60 and 62 to 70—to clause 16, which we have already considered. In addition, there are our proposed amendment to Lords amendment No. 61 and eight Government amendments to clause 16 in lieu of Lords amendment No. 82. The House may find it difficult at this, or any, hour to follow the proposed amendments, so for the convenience of the House I have placed in the Vote Office two documents. The one labelled A is the text of clause 16 incorporating the Lords amendments as sent to us, and the second, labelled B, is the text of clause 16 incorporating the Government's proposed amendments. Document A is the text which the Lords have asked us to accept, and document B is the text which the Government wish to send back to the Lords.
The Government disagree with amendment No. 82, which adds two subsections (5A) and (5B) to clause 18. They would provide that, where a final order has been made or a provisional order confirmed, any person who has suffered loss or damage as a result of any contravention of the licence condition to which the order refers should have the right to sue for damages in respect of any contravention of the condition which took place before the order was made. That is a radical change from the Bill as approved by the House. We made provision for the right to obtain damages to commence only when a final order had been made or a provisional order confirmed. That means that an operator becomes exposed to a liability to pay damages only when the Director has taken formal steps to specify that a condition has been breached.
The procedures leading up to the making of a final order or to the confirmation of a provisional order involve delay while the operator is given the opportunity to object to the

proposed final order or to the terms of a provisional order. The Government accept that this delay is undesirable and agree that damages should be payable earlier. Under amendment No. 80, which we have just approved, damages become payable as soon as a provisional order is made. That is a significant change from the point of view of strengthening the powers of the Director General of Oftel. But amendment No. 82 goes further and proposes that the right to damages should go right back to the time when the licence condition was first breached. The only limitation on the ability to claim damages is the proposed requirement.
The Government are convinced that amendment No. 82 would do serious damage not only to telecommunications operators, both large and small, but to those who depend upon telecommunications generally. The main reason why amendment No. 82 is objectionable is that it introduces retrospection. If it remained in the Bill it would bring about circumstances in which an operator would be exposed to unlimited damages in respect of courses of action which were entirely acceptable when they were taken.
This problem arises because licence conditions will not be precise rules. They will set out broad guidelines. Therefore, an area of uncertainty would be created in the operations of a public telecommunications operator. This uncertainty would obviously harm BT and, indeed, other public telecommunications operators. BT's position would be impossible if each of its 19 million customers had the opportunity to claim unlimited damages in respect of past actions.
The position of small operators such as the radiotelephone or message handling companies would be no better. They, like BT, will have licence conditions, but they have limited resources, and actions for damages could readily drive them into liquidation.
The amendment would also do serious harm to the enforcement provisions in the Bill. As it is drafted, licence conditions are enforced by the Director, and if he discovers a breach he must normally make an order requiring the operator to take specific steps to comply with his licence conditions.
We have now changed that. The Director has a duty to act quickly. This will produce swift remedies. If, however, his action gives others the right to sue for damages in respect of the period before he makes his order, the Director will, before making any order, have to take account of the potential impact of those damages on the operator concerned. This will lead to delays in decision-making by the Director General, which no one wants.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: Surely the right to sue for the proceeding period causes the licensee to be very much more cautious in its acts in relation to the general public or the third party concerned.

Mr. Baker: The changes that we are now introducing will make any licensee very careful indeed not to breach the licence conditions. We have given the Director General the power to issue an interim order straight away, virtually on a prima facie case before an investigation. That is a considerable extra power.
If a small company claimed that it was discriminated against by BT or Mercury—or vice-versa for that matter


—and if there was a good prima facie case, the Director General could issue a provisional order which would effectively say to the offending party, "Cease and desist."
There could then be a further examination, and if the Director confirmed a prima facie case and issued a final order, damages would start from the day that a provisional order began.
That is a considerable strengthening of the powers of the Director General of Oftel. That will make all licensees very cautious indeed. That is what we want, because the whole structure of the regime that we are setting up is swift and effective policing by the Director General.
For these reasons, I hope that the House welcomes the changes that we have made. We recognise that their Lordships had a point, but we do not think that the amendments moved in another place met it effectively. We have now moved very far to meeting what they want. Towards the end of their Lordships' deliberations, those who proposed the changes felt that the purpose was not achieved by their original intention. We have now tidied it up, and I commend the amendments to the House.

Mr. Stott: Throughout the progress of this miserable Bill I cannot recall an occasion when I have had the opportunity to agree with the Minister. However, I absolutely agree with his opposing their Lordships in their amendment.
I do so for perhaps different reasons. Given that the Lords amendment contains retrospection, we are concerned not only about the operators but about those who work in the telecommunications industry as well as the trade unions in that industry. I refer to trade unions in the plural, because the Minister will be aware that the Secretary of State has granted licences not just to BT— whose principal union is the POEU—but to Mercury. It has granted licences to the Hull corporation and to two cellular radio companies, all of whose employees could be subject to the amendment if the House were to agree with their Lordships in the amendment.
I should like to put on record why the Opposition agree with the Government in disagreeing with their Lordships in the amendment. As it stands, clause 18(6) allows for the retrospective imposition of damages on those, including the trade unions, who ignore an order prohibiting them from continuing a breach of a telecommunications operator's licensing conditions.
Although we do not agree with the Bill and have said so on many occasions — the Minister for Information Technology is fully aware of that—we accept that it is essential for the Director General to decide whether action such as a breach of BT's licensing conditions would be liable, if continued, to damages. It follows that the period from which the damages would start must be when the Director General issues such an order. But following the Lords amendment a totally unsatisfactory situation has been created.
The Director General would still decide his view of such action and issue or not issue an order as appropriate, and the trade unions concerned could then proceed on the reasonable assumption that the Director General's view was correct. However, it could see his view overturned at some time in the future in an entirely unexpected way. That could be because of the different views, perhaps, of a new Director General facing the same situation, or

because of a later decision of the same Director General which had the accidental effect of modifying his previous decision.
The unions—I stress the plural: the unions, not just the POEU — would then be in an extremely onerous position in having to continue a course of action which, though it breached BT's licence, did not, they thought, malice them liable for damages, only to find subsequently that they were subject to those damages because of the retrospection clause. It is a matter which clearly concerns not just the Government in respect of the operation of the licence, but the trade unions, which would be subject to the conditions of the amendment if if were to be passed by the House this evening. Therefore, we wholeheartedly approve of the Government's decision not to support their Lordships in their amendment.

Mr. Michael Marshall: I should like to say a few words about the Lords amendment that we are being asked to reject. Initially, I declare my interest as a parliamentary adviser to Cable and Wireless. Much of the debate that has taken place in a truncated form tonight relates to the problems that we have all had to examine very carefully when considering the difficulties with a near monopoly and its competitors.
Due to the problems that we all know so well in this House, we have not had an opportunity for adequate debate in this whole area, and I think that their Lordships, in this matter, have performed a valuable service as a revising Chamber. I pay tribute to my noble Friend Lord Morris for his work in bringing the amendment forward, and to those who, on an all-party basis, have sharpened up the debate. Having said that, I should like to make the point to my right hon. Friend that I think throughout the whole proceedings on the Bill a great deal has depended on the good will and, indeed, the assurances that have been forthcoming from Ministers in trying to mark the card for the Director General of Oftel.
I pay tribute to what my right hon. Friend and his colleagues have done in trying to meet the arguments that some of my hon. Friends have made. I hope that before the debate closes, my right hon. Friend will find an opportunity to provide further assurances on the value added network services, on the whole range of anticompetitive practices, and to touch on inter-connection. I know that he will be able to do this by correspondence, or when the licences are debated. On that I agree with what the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) said, because we shall have an opportunity to raise some of the issues then. If some of these background problems can be met by Ministerial reassurances, the difficulties envisaged in the amendments may not come to pass.
My right hon. Friend has clearly made out a case that the Government amendment strengthens the hand of the Director General of Oftel and of those likely to be affected by the Bill against non-compliance by a licensee with his licence in a way which would not have been the case were their Lordships' amendments to be sustained. It is true that the Director will have a specific duty to act, by issuing a provisional order where he deems that a licence provision is being breached, and he can, my right hon. Friend has fairly argued, do that quickly. I accept that that is a considerable step forward. He must also take account of any loss or damage that a person may be suffering from a breach of a licensee's conditions. In that, my right hon.
Friend has made out a case. While not decrying the efforts in the other place, we can see an opportunity not only to meet the thrust of the argument, but to avoid the retrospective problems that my right hon. Friend outlined.
It would be churlish not to say that throughout the Bill's stages much has depended on the way in which my right hon. Friend, my hon. Friend the parliamentary Under-Secretary and their officials have met the spirit as well as the substance of our representations. As one who, in the past, had some part in the original Telecommunications Bill, I feel that we are in the process of removing one of the last remaining stumbling blocks on the forward path towards not just liberalisation but privatisation. I wish my right hon. Friend well in that further endeavour, and the House will look forward to what he still has to say tonight.

Mr. Neale: I remind my right hon. Friend the Minister for Information Technology of the speech that he gave on Second Reading of the Bill that was introduced in 1981. If he recalls his words in that debate, he will take pride in introducing these amendments this evening. However, I point out to my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel (Mr. Marshall) that I have some slight reservations about the reduced nature of his proposals. The nature of this amendment has been supported so vigorously by my right hon. and hon. Friends in the various stages of the development of the law on telecommunications because of the fear of the extent of the BT monopoly and the way in which the nature of telecommunications has been contained in the various proposed licences for the next few years.
The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) made a point with which it is difficult to contend — that we are converting a public monopoly into a private monopoly—and asked what reason we have for doing so. I know that my right hon. and hon. Friends have made considerable efforts not only to liberalise but to increase competition. They have rightly referred to a whole range of issues where this has been done. The fear of continuing the power of the monopoly—the power to enter into unfair practices—is still there. My right hon. Friend is aware of a number of these practices that have been entered into by BT.
In the time remaining to my right hon. Friend before the licence is finalised and the framework which he has worked so hard to prepare is established, I hope that he will take account of the comments being made and try to accelerate the process whereby the attachment side of BT is separately accounted and clearly identified apart from BT's network operation to ensure that it is clear to all concerned that there is no unfair cross-subsidisation that militates against other operators, providers of other attachments and the market generally. I hope that he will see that there must be some real sense in allowing the network side of BT to have an unfettered and unihibited desire to see anyone connect to it rather than having that desire inhibited purely because it is itself in the market providing attachments.
I concede that in spirit the amendment is a considerable and welcome step forward, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: I wish to add my own word of appreciation to the Government for taking on board the

legitimate concern expressed by many of my hon. Friends and fought for very spiritedly just over a year ago by my hon. Friends the Members for Arundel (Mr. Marshall) and for Cornwall, North (Mr. Neale). At that time the Government did not entirely appreciate the fears expressed by some of their colleagues. I am glad that they have now met some of the anxieties expressed and accepted in the other place.
My only caveat—and it is a substantial one—is the moment from which one is entitled to sue for damages. My own feeling— and my experience of the Bill supports me in it — is that we do not always appreciate the moment at which we suffer damage or loss. It may be that our reckoning or understanding of the position in which we find ourselves consequential upon an act by a monopoly that is damaging to our interests is slow. Therefore, if we cannot identify to the satisfaction of the Director General of Oftel at an early stage the damage that we are experiencing and the breach of licence that we suspect, we are extremely vulnerable. It would not have been unreasonable for the Government to accept the contention that we ought to be able to sue for the entire amount of the damage and not just from the time that the Director General said that we suffered it.
My right hon. Friend accepts that his proposal will act as a caution to what we all hope is the lessening monopoly of BT and the providers of services. I acknowledge that the Government have accepted a large number of the arguments advanced in the other place and by my hon. Friends, but I regret that they did not take the final step to give our citizens rights, which are available elsewhere, to sue in defence of their properties, businesses and own interests. Therein lie our freedoms. That is much of the argument behind the contentions of my hon. Friends— that if we are to have a liberal, dynamic society, each of us must be able to defend our rights in the courts and sue for redress.

Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: I share the anxieties expressed by Government supporters. I have had recent examples of the way in which the monopoly of BT can oppress those who seek to challenge its position and open up the market in the way that the Government intend.
I have in my constituency a new firm which has been established to add on equipment to the BT system and provide a challenge to BT. It has found it very difficult to obtain equipment because of delays over approval and because of the purchasing power of the BT monopoly which prevents suppliers from supplying equipment. That will be a grave worry in future. People such as my constituents must have the power to seek redress if such unfair competition and obstacles are placed in their way. The purchasing power of BT which will remain after the enactment of the Bill will be substantial. There are ways in which that substantial purchasing power can be used against the interests of other people who want to purchase equipment from the manufacturers.
In addition, I have had evidence of some of the most appalling behaviour by BT recently. I have written to the Minister about that and I look forward to receiving his response in due course. I have had evidence—it is not the only evidence of such things happening—of firms seeking to obtain business who have had to go to BT to seek approval for installing equipment and, lo and behold, five minutes later BT has gone to the customer and offered its services at a knock-down price, taking the business


away from the new company. Obviously, that will change in future. I regard that as sharp practice. It is unacceptable to have such action being taken by BT at present when it has this enormous power of approving the installation equipment when it is in competition with people who are seeking to install it.
It is worrying for the future that BT will have such a substantial, dominating part of the market. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will assure the House that the right of redress will be there, and, as we proceed this evening, that the approval of equipment will be rapid and provide equipment manufacturers with the means of getting their new equipment on to the market so that purchasers other than BT will be able to obtain it in order to install it in competition with BT. I look forward to the new system coming into operation so that there can be much greater competition in the telecom sphere than we have at present.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: My hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Neale) referred to the Second Reading of the Bill in 1981. It has been on a long journey and we are almost in port now. The Bill has changed quite a bit as it has journeyed across the seas, always—I think and hope—for the better.
I have listened carefully to what has been said about competition and I accept that there is a growing concern about some of BT's activities. The hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth) has written to me about the case to which he referred. I have replied to him and I am raising the matter with Sir George Jefferson. If what he says is justified, there are unacceptable practices. We are considering such instances in determining the final details of the licence, because it is essential that it should be the instrument whereby one can ensure the competition that my hon. Friend said he wanted to see.
I accept that the amendment does not go quite as far as my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) wants. On the other hand, this is a significant change. Under amendments (b) (d) and (e) the Director General has a duty to make a provisional order. He cannot just wait and see. In examining that duty he has to take into account specifically the extent to which any person is likely to suffer damage or loss if the contravention continues. Finally, there is the speed at which the provisional order can be introduced. Those are important weapons in the armoury to ensure greater competition.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 82 disagreed to.

Amendments made to the Bill in lieu thereof:

(a), in page 19, line 30, leave out '(3)' and insert '(2)'.
(b), in page 19, line 35, leave out from 'condition' to end of line 38.
(c), in page 19, line 39, leave out '(3)' and insert '(5)'.
(d), in page 19, line 40, after 'Director', insert '(a).
(e), in page 19, line 41, leave out 'may' and insert

',and
(b) that it is requisite that a provisional order be made, the Director shall (instead of taking steps towards the making of a final order)'.

(f), in page 20, leave out lines 1 and 2 and insert—
'(3) In determining for the purposes of subection (2)(b) above whether it is requisite that a provisional order be made, the Director shall have regard, in particular, to the extent to which any person is likely to sustain loss or damage in consequence of anything which, in contravention of the relevant condition, is likely to be done, or omitted to be done, before a final order may be made.'.

(g), in page 20, line 9, leave out

'The duty imposed by subsection 81) or'

and insert
'The duties imposed by subsections (1) to'.

(h), in page 20, line 24, leave out from 'at' to 'is' in line 25 and insert
'such time, being the earliest practicable time, as'. — [Mr. Kenneth Baker.]

Clause 16

SECURING COMPLIANCE WITH LICENCE CONDITIONS

Lords amendment: No. 61 in page 19, line 40, leave out from "is" to "may" in line 41 and insert
contravening or has contravened and is likely again to contravene any of the conditions of his licence, the Director

Read a Second time.

Amendment proposed to the Lords amendment, to leave out 'the Director'.—[Mr. Kenneth Baker.]

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to, some with special entry.

New Clause

APPLICATION OF LAW IN RELATION TO OFFER OF SHARES OR DEBENTURES OF THE. SUCCESSOR COMPANY

Lords amendment: No. 143, before clause 68 insert the following new clause—
'.—(1) This section applies where the Secretary of State or a nominee of his offers for sale to the public shares or debentures of the successor company at a time when that company is wholly owned by the Crown; and in this section "Full prospectus" means a prospectus which complies, or is deemed to comply, with the requirements of Schedule 4 to the Companies Act 1948 (matters to be specified in prospectus and reports to be set out therein).
(2) If the shares or debentures are offered by a full prospectus as respects which the conditions mentioned in subsection (3) below are fulfilled (in this section referred to as "the offer prospectus"), any form of application for the shares or debentures may (instead of being issued with a full prospectus) be issued with a notice given by the Secretary of State which includes—

(a) a brief description of the shares or debentures offered, the terms of the offer, the successor company's business and its financial position;
(b) an indication of the places in the United Kingdom where copies of the offer prospectus are to be available for inspection by members of the public; and
(c) a statement of the effect of subsections (4) and (5) below.

(3) The said conditions are—

(a) that a copy of the prospectus has been delivered to the registrar of companies in pursuance of section 41 of the said Act of 1948; and
(b) that arrangements have been made with a view to securing—

(i) that on or before the date of receipt of the form of application by a member of the public a copy of the prospectus is published in not less than four national newspapers; and
(ii) that on that date copies of the prospectus are generally available in the United Kingdom for inspection by members of the public.

(4) Where a form of application is issued without a full prospectus but with a notice given by the Secretary of State under subsection (2) above, then, for the purposes of any enactment or any rule of law—

(a) the notice shall be taken to have incorporated the offer prospectus; and
(b) any application for the shares or debentures which is made in pursuance of the notice shall be taken to have been made in pursuance of that prospectus.



(5) Where a form of application is issued without a full prospectus, neither the form of application nor any document which is issued with it shall be regarded—

(a) as a prospectus for the purposes of sections 37 to 46 of the said Act of 1948 (Prospectus requirements); or
(b) as a circular for the purposes of section 14 of the Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Act 1958 or section 13 of the Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Act (Northern Ireland) 1940 (circulars relating to investments),

but only, where the form of application is issued without a notice given by the Secretary of State under subsection (2) above, for the purpose of determining the liability of persons other than the Secretary of State.'

Mr. Kenneth Baker: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This clause, which was introduced in the other place, was justified on the basis that it was aimed at meeting exceptional needs, while at the same time providing proper safeguards for the interests of the investor.
The exceptional needs in this case are related to BT's size, and the unique familiarity of the public at large with the corporation. BT is very large, and to get a shareholder base appropriate to its size will require us to bring the sale offer to the attention of a very wide audience. For example, ICI has a shareholder register numbering 450,000 which it has built up over many years. BT is larger, and to achieve a comparable or larger shareholder base during the relatively short period of the flotation would require very much wider exposure.
1.45 am
We also need to go to a wide audience to ensure that everyone who is interested has the opportunity to be involved in the flotation. BT's subscribers number some 19 million and public awareness and interest in BT is therefore exceptionally widespread. We want to give those with an interest, and particularly telephone subscribers, the chance to invest because we should like the public at large to have a direct interest and influence in the running of BT. This would also, we hope, contribute to a spread of share ownership generally, which we believe would be of much wider benefit.
We must plan for a share offer on an unprecedented size. On that basis we would be in danger of outstripping the physical capacity in the United Kingdom to print and distribute full prospectuses, if a prospectus was required with every share application form. I am doubtful whether such a set of circumstances was ever envisaged when the full prospectus requirement was drawn up. In fact, at that time full prospectuses were themselves very much shorter, so even if a share offer of this size had been envisaged the logistical problems that I have outlined would not have been so prohibitive.
The clause therefore translates the prospectus requirement into terms which are practicable for an offer of this size. It does this by allowing us to issue a short notice with share application forms rather than a full prospectus. We nevertheless aim to fulfil the spirit of the existing legislation and this is made clear in the way that the clause is drafted. The clause ensures that the issue of a short notice takes place only against the background of a widely available full prospectus. I envisage a prospectus of the normal 50 to 60 pages which satisfies the prevailing stock exchange and legal requirements. I can assure the House that we intend to make the prospectus very widely

available indeed—at high street outlets and elsewhere—when the time comes. The clause also requires there to be arrangements for the publication of the full prospectus in at least four national newspapers. In these ways the clause ensures that investors who wish to make use of the full prospectus can do so without difficulty.
For the notice itself, the clause requires there to be a description of the salient points about the offer and BT's business and finances. This should help to highlight the important points for those who are unfamiliar with working their way through a full prospectus. We do not want to lose sight of this as a benefit of the notice because it will be difficult for the ordinary public to identify the main points in what may be a complex and long and full prospectus. The notice can therefore make a genuine contribution to their understanding of what is on offer. Since the notice will also be required to indicate places where the full prospectus will be available, the further and more detailed information will still be signposted for those who are interested.
In whole, therefore, the clause removes the practical obstructions to presenting BT to an audience appropriate to its size, but remains sensitive to investors' needs for information.
I commend the amendment to the House.

Mr. Roger Stott: We are back on track again as we rapidly conclude this evening's debate on this very important issue. By "back on track" I mean that I disagree profoundly with the spurious motives which the Minister has just enunciated for accepting the amendment. His remarks were completely and utterly fallacious.
Conservative Members should realise that the amendment allows the Government to get round the strict requirements about what has to be published in the prospectus for any company which is to be publicly floated. It is expected that the so-called "full prospectus" will be a very substantial document and might, therefore, in the Government's eyes be too complicated and difficult to handle for the "ordinary shareholder". Consequently, they are providing what is euphemistically described as the "short prospectus".
The point of having a full prospectus is that it provides the shareholders with a considerable amount of protection. It requires a company to provide fairly detailed information about its activities and prospects at a time when it is seeking to sell its shares to the public. Bitter experience has shown that these tight laws on information disclosure are very important if shareholders are to be adequately protected.
However, in this Government's mad desire to sell off BT they have now instituted—by their support of the amendment — a new procedure for circumventing the full prospectus requirements. That raises very important issues about shareholder protection and the trustworthiness of offer documents. Is this to be the forerunner of several other truncated prospectuses for share flotations that the Government may or may not propose in future? To what extent will it alter the Stock Exchange rules and the general provision of shareholder protection? Recent experience has shown that, far from reducing the flow of information to shareholders, there is increasing necessity to expand it and give shareholders greater protection. It might seem ironic that I am advancing an argument for shareholders in British Telecom, but the seedy business of


the short prospectus is a further example of the way in which the Government continually try to bend the existing rules.
Behind the amendment is the Government's real intention of selling off British Telecom at whatever cost at the first opportunity irrespective of whether that is in the interests of the nation as a whole or of the telecommunications industry in general. It is being claimed by those of us who oppose privatisation that the Government will encourage British Telecom to tart up its accounts so that it can provide the most attractive share offer possible, hence cutting down the prospectus, which will be a way of simplifying matters and making the share offer seem more attractive than it would otherwise be.
The Opposition's argument has been reinforced by recent accounting changes in BT. There has been a change in the depreciation policy by the adoption of the historic cost approach. This has had the miraculous effect of boosting BT's profits, and for the first six months of 1983–84 there was a sharp increase. The trading profits for that period will be taken as a key factor in the flotation. The profits were reported at £462 million, with every expectation of a profit of nearly £1 billion in a full year. This compares with the reported profit in 1982–83 of only £365 million. The increased profit was due to a large change of supplementary depreciation.
The corporation has shortened significantly the lives of its assets. This has led it to write them off sooner than it would have done previously. There has been an enormous write-off of £933 million, which was effective from 1 April. That write-off will be effective from the year of its flotation. This approach contravenes the standards of accountancy practice, but I understand that the auditors have complied with it. Such a write off has important consequences and the declared profits in the year after privatisation will be increased by the amount of the write off, which will be an enormous bonus to the would-be shareholders.

Mr. Neale: Will the hon. Gentleman concede that BT's accounts have regularly been qualified by its auditors, so they are hardly accounts that have had a great record of reputability in the past? Secondly, will he concede that one of the defects of his argument about the long-term retainer within the accounting structure of the assets that he is describing has been the tendency of BT to keep its assets as part of its current supplies and not to write them off more quickly and take in new forms of product? Many of the assets have been in the books for ages, with the result that new technology has been prevented from entering the organisation.

Mr. Stott: No, I do not accept that. If that were so, why was the different accountancy procedure not instituted some years ago? Why now, at the very time that the Government are proposing to sell off one of the most important assets that the nation owns, is it proposed to change the entire accountancy procedure? The Government are changing the accountancy procedure to make BT that much more attractive to the potential shareholder.
I shall pray in aid a cutting from The Times of 4 April. It is a letter to the editor from Sir Ian Morrow, who is a distinguished accountant and a director of Hambro's bank. What greater credentials could the honourable knight have? The letter stated:

British Telecom has now reinstated its profit for the year to March 1983, showing an increase from £365 million to £1,030 million. The first figure is used as the basis for the price increases to consumers, the second, for setting the price for investors. Both of course are certified as 'true and fair'.
With this example will other nationalised industries, e.g. British Gas, Please reinstate their profits on a historical basis?
Perhaps the Treasury could be persuaded that private contractors to the Government should use inflation accounting figures for determining their costs on non-competitive bids.
Those are not my words, but those of Sir Ian Morrow. He drew the example that I have already drawn of the shameful way—I am tempted to say dishonest, but I would be ruled out of order—in which the government are encouraging British Telecom to cook the books to fatten the cow before they sell it.

Mr. Neale: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that not only among Conservative Members but throughout the country there is considerable puzzlement about the way in which he projects the case for the members of his union? He is always sincere in the way in which he puts his argument, but surely someone working in an organisation such as British Telecom must be proud that it is now showing its true profitable position. It is getting its accounts into order. Until comparatively recently it had only one qualified accountant within its whole operation. How can the hon. Gentleman, on behalf of those for whom he speaks, suggest that it is not in their interests that BT is put on a proper commercial accounting basis so that it can compete in the open market with other companies?

Mr. Stott: If it were for the benefit of those whom I represent, we would not be doing what we are doing this evening. It is as simple and straightforward as that. It is because it is not for their benefit, but because the Government are privatising a public asset and fattening the cow before it is slaughtered, that we are opposing the whole principle of the Bill. The clause, which the Government now support, is one further example of the way in which they want to ensure that the books of BT are altered and cooked to give it the greatest profit when the industry is privatised.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: The hon. Gentleman is making allegations that it would be generous to describe as ignorant. In no way can a Government intervene in a nationalised industry and instruct it to change its asset lives. Indeed, the proposals agreed by the board of BT must be approved by its auditors. At no time did the Government intervene or express any view.

Mr. Stott: That may be the case. The fact that the Bill's provisions have been debated in the House and in the other place, thereby giving the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry the right to sell off British Telecom has meant that at least two years ago BT's board was given the green light and told that the industry was about to be privatised. It may be that the Minister has not said to Sir George Jefferson, "Cook your books," because he cannot say that, but the fact that legislation has been introduced to allow privatised BT to come into operation has given BT the opportunity to do what I have said. The Government are guilty in complying with the regulations.
2 am
The Minister owes the House certain explanations. I am sure that he read The Sunday Times "Business News" last Sunday. It contained an interesting article headed, "BT bosses launch shares roadshow." I am sure that that article


appeared this morning in the Minister's press cuttings file. Would he comment on some of the salient points in that article?
It does not come as any surprise to the Minister that the Opposition are totally opposed to the principles of privatisation and people making money out of the privatisation of British Telecom. It would appear, if my information is correct, that the stockbrokers whom the Department of Trade and Industry has designated as the appropriate people to facilitate this sale will benefit considerably. I understand that in the past the Commission to the stockbrokers who have participated in the flotation of other public assets has been levied at 1·55 per cent. The Sunday Times article said that the Commission had been increased to 2 per cent. If that is the case, the fat cats in the City — the Opposition are always accused of misrepresenting the Government's intentions—the seven or eight stockbrokers listed in the article, will receive a fee of £60 million merely for facilitating the sale of British Telecom.
The Secretary of State is gracing us with his presence in the Chamber. The right hon. Gentleman should stand up at the Dispatch Box and tell my constituents that the Government will not pay £60 million of public money—not money belonging to the right hon. Gentleman, the Conservative party or me—to facilitate the privatisation of British Telecom. Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that that will not be done? The way in which the Government have dealt with the flotation of the shares has been appalling. The amendment is one further example of the way in which the Government are getting around the law by not submitting a proper and full prospectus to those who wish to buy the shares. That is a disgraceful and contemptible act.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: It is difficult to follow that mish-mash of low-level arguments, which raise doubt about the future of the Opposition Front Bench. When there is merit in any of those arguments one has to be cautious, but I wish to associate myself with two of the themes identified by the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) in his awful diatribe.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the provision of a full prospectus. We are conscious that every investor, no matter how small, and no matter how ignorant he may be deemed to be, is entitled to the same information as everyone else. I understand the Government's laudable motive to make the issue as widely accessible as possible, but I am not sure that that necessitates a lesser form of prospectus than would otherwise be provided. However, I do not make a great deal of that.
The second point that I think the hon. Member for Wigan made followed reports in the Sunday papers that the underwriting fee will be 2 per cent. We are talking about the disposal of what looks to be an extremely attractive company, whether on the old acccountancy basis or on the new historic cost convention basis. I wonder why a fee of 2 per cent. is necessary for what ought to be a successful launch. I understand that the valuation of the company is £4,000 million, which would give a gigantic underwriting fee of £80 million. I regret that I am not a shareholder in some of the companies that are being given such large sums to promote a highly attractive and, I predict, a successful and popular issue.
I shall be grateful if my right hon. Friend the Minister, in trying to reply to the arguments of the hon. Member for Wigan, will tell us why it is necessary to provide a lesser prospectus and why the Government are to pay an underwriting fee that raises concern on both sides of the House.

Mr. Ashdown: I listened with interest to the measured and careful speech of the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) and I agree with what he said about the prospectus.
The alliance parties firmly favour broader share ownership. That is an important aspect of the reforms that we should like to see made in the British economy. I agree in principle with the Minister's aim of a broader ownership of shares in British industry. However, I also share the concern of the hon. Members for Wigan (Mr. Stott) and for Aldridge-Brownhills about the unreasonable profit that will be made by the stockbrokers. Once again, it seems to be a case of large profits being delivered into the hands of the Government's friends.
New and exciting methods of share ownership should be greeted with enthusiasm, though I suspect that the Government's motives are a mixture of broader share ownership, which we welcome, and the desire to bring their narrow ideology into practice. We must ask whether that is a sufficient reason for overturning a provision enshrined in he Companies Act. The provision of a full prospectus is a safeguard, and I thereforé oppose the amendment. It is the duty of the House to scrutinise the Government's actions and to consider the long-term consequences of the precedents that the Government are establishing—for short-term reasons, in most cases.
We are seeing a change in the law of Britain and in the safeguards provided by that law, in pursuit of the sale of the company that we do not wish to be sold. Much more importantly, the change is contained in a Bill which is primarily nothing to do with the Companies Act, and it may have consequences that knock on into the future.
The hon. Member for Wigan made a speech with the general tenor of which I found some difficulty in agreeing. However, it contained some nuggets of importance. The hon. Gentleman was right to be worried about the establishment of such an important precedent within the framework of a Bill which has, fundamentally, nothing to do with the Companies Act. He pointed out that the precedent is established not only in the generality of the application of the Companies Act elsewhere, but in the context of the Government's plans for privatisation. If this change is to be introduced at this stage how much more will the Goverment lean on this precedent in the sale and privatisation of other assets?
Furthermore, are we not here establishing a capacity —it may or may not be made use of on this occasion— for advertising the shares in very broad terms in the newspapers or by other means, as was suggested in the article in The Sunday Times and not producing the prospectus until, perhaps, the day before the flotation? The setting of this precedent could damage the safeguards in the Companies Act about the publishing of a full prospectus.
We may well support the Government's aim, but it is largely coloured by ideology and dogmatism about the privatisation of assets, and we believe that in pursuit of that aim they are setting a dangerous precedent.
The hon. Member for Wigan referred, not so very briefly, to the writing down of assets. We continue to oppose the sale of BT, but, given what the Government are trying to do, and within the context of a successful sale of BT. writing down the assets should be a reasonably sensible way of proceeding. However, BT will be left in a highly geared state. Funds will be low in relation to debts. Should not the gearing ratio be brought down? If the Government wish to equip BT to survive in the real world, might there not be a case for writing off some of the debts? Will not the Minister have to follow that logic through and take some action along these lines?
It seems wrong to us, and it is a matter of deep concern, that the Government should be overturning some of the safeguards built into the Companies Act in order to pursue their advantage at this particular time. That is wrong, even though the aim of encouraging wider share ownership is something to which we could subscribe.

Mr. Mark Fisher: In speaking to a previous amendment, the Minister for Information Technology said that the Bill was almost in port. It had been a long voyage, but he was almost there. As the Minister knows, however, as yet he has only the legislation. He now has to put the legislation into effect and sell the shares. That is what the new clause addresses itself to.
The reasons given for what is a considerable change in normal flotation practice are not very satisfactory. The Minister said that for logistical reasons he could not publish a full prospectus. He said that it was not practicable and used the rather shaky logic of setting up a problem, saying that it could not be solved and that he should therefore change the normal rules of flotation. The Opposition do not find it satisfactory if the intention of the new clause—it probably is—is to find some way round the Stock Exchange rules as laid out in the Yellow Book. The Yellow Book makes it clear that, for a successful flotation, a company that offers itself for flotation should be able to present five years' certified and audited accounts and a full prospectus to all shareholders.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: The guillotine is about to fall and I shall not have time for a substantial reply, but on the mini prospectus, I beg the hon. Gentleman to appreciate that the full prospectus of 50 to 60 pages is likely to be printed in several hundred thousand copies. There are some 19 million telephone subscribers and we regard this as a wonderful opportunity to extend share ownership on an extensive scale. To fulfil that opportunity it is not possible during a flotation to print 19 million prospectuses and deliver them to the homes of every subscriber. I ask hon. Members to consider how difficult it is to organise their election addresses during the three weeks of an election campaign and the amount of effort that that requires.
Our proposals are not sinister but are merely addressed to the possibility of trying to expose the prospectus to as many people as possible. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has said that he wants this to be an opportunity dramatically to increase share ownership. That cannot be done if we are obliged to print and deliver a 60-page prospectus for the sale of shares in four to five days, or one week at the most. That is not logistically possible.
I should like to make it clear that the full prospectus will contain all of the details. The shorter one cannot contain

all of the details, but it will make clear where interested people can go to see a full one. They will be made widely available through the banks and possibly even through post offices. In no way are people being asked to buy a pig in a poke. I believe that the anxieties that have been expressed about this matter have been alarmist —I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is adding to them— and I hope that I have been able to settle some of that anxiety tonight.

Mr. Fisher: I feel that what the Minister is saying is not quite true. There is not a logistical problem. BT is able to produce telephone directories that are far longer than the full prospectus and deliver them to every house. The Minister has set the problem. If he wants to sell shares to several hundred thousand or several million people, he has a responsibility to give them a full prospectus. It is not satisfactory for him to say that he has set himself a problem of trying to sell to millions of people but that he cannot fulfil his responsibilities as a seller to explain fully the problems, possibilities and, in the Government's terms, opportunities that the sale offers.
The Secretary of State is smiling mockingly, but if he wishes to sell the shares of a company in which he believes, he owes it to the people to whom he is selling to make the accounting problems clear. As Sir George Jefferson's chairman's statement in this year's half yearly report shows, there are distinct problems about the accounts and presentation that need explaining. They might not be sinister, but they need some capital reconstruction and massaging of the accounts to be appreciated and accepted. The change in depreciation policy has much to commend it, and getting rid of the old supplementary basis is probably welcomed on both sides of the House. When hon. Members sniggered because standard accounting policy was not being followed, they might not have been aware that, instead of passing through the profit and loss account which, I believe, is normal practice, the reserves have been written off. That is not standard accounting practice, and such a substantial change — £993 million— requires some explanation in the accounts. It is doubtful whether that can be done in a short, crisp prospectus.
Since time is running short, it will be difficult to put my entire case. However, the Government should answer serious questions in this prospectus not only about depreciation but about other accounting problems, including what provision will be made for——

Question put and agreed to.

It being four hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion relating to the Telecommunications Bill (Allocation of Time), Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the miler this day, to put forthwith the Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

New Clause

INFORMATION ETC. TO BE MARKED ON OR TO ACCOMPANY APPARATUS

Lords amendment: No. 153, after the clause last inserted to insert the following new clause:
. — (1) Where it appears to the Secretary of State expedient that any description of relevant apparatus should be marked with or accompanied by any information or instruction relating to the apparatus or its installation or use, the Secretary of State may by order—



(a) impose requirements for securing that relevant apparatus of that description is so marked or accompanied, and
(b) regulate or prohibit the supply of any such apparatus with respect to which the requirements are not complied with;

and the requirements may extend to the form and manner in which the information or instruction is given.
(2) An order under this section may, in the case of apparatus supplied in circumstances where the information or instruction required by the order would not be conveyed until after delivery, require the whole or part thereof to be also displayed near the apparatus.
(3) Where an order under this section is in force with respect to relevant apparatus of any description, any person who, in the course of any trade or business, supplies or offers to supply relevant apparatus of that description in contravention of the order shall, subject to section (Offences due to default of third person) below, be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.
(4) For the purposes of this section a person exposing relevant apparatus for supply or having such apparatus in his possession shall be deemed to offer to supply it.
(5) In this section and section (Information etc. to be given in advertisements) below—

(a) "relevant apparatus" means wireless telegraphy apparatus or apparatus designed or adapted for use in connection with wireless telegraphy apparatus; and
(b) "supply" shall be construed in accordance with section 9 of the Consumer Safety Act 1978."

Read a Second time.

Manuscript amendment proposed to the Lords amendment, in subsection (4), at end insert 'for supply'. —[Mr. Kenneth Baker.]

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to, some with special entry.

CYCLE TRACKS BILL [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified,

Resolved,

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Cycle Tracks Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

(a) any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State under that Act;
(b) any increase attributable to that Act in the sums payable out of such money under any other Act.— [Mr. Garel-Jones.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

ADMINISTRATION OF ESTATES

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 79(5) (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.),

That the draft Administration of Estates (Small Payments) (Increase of Limit) Order 1984, which was laid before this House on 12th March, be approved.—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]

Question agreed to.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 79 (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.),

That the draft General Practice Finance Corporation (Increase of Borrowing Powers) Order 1984, which was laid before this House on 14th March, be approved.—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]

Question agreed to.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

COMMUNITY ROAD HAULAGE QUOTA

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 80 (Standing Committees on European Community documents),

That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 7933/83 and of the Department of Transport's Explanatory Memorandum of September 1983 and welcomes the Government's strong support for the proposal.—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]

Question agreed to.

Alzheimer's Disease

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]

Mr. Richard Holt: One thing that all hon. Members would agree, irrespective of politics, is that we wish each other long and healthy lives. In doing so, we always regard our responsibilities and duties to society.
There is today a slowly growing awareness of a disease called Alzheimer's disease, which was first diagnosed in 1907 and which has taken 75 years to become the subject of comment in the House. Alzheimer's disease is the most common form of dementia. It is incurable and irreversible. Dementia is a progressive decline in the ability to speak, to think, to remember and to learn, with an accompanying loss in the capacity for deliberate actions and movement. A once active and responsible adult will no longer remember his spouse and children, will not be able to maintain even a simple conversation, will become disoriented, even in the familiar surroundings of his home, and completely incontinent. In short, as an adult, he will revert to infancy.
Dementia is not a normal part of the ageing process. Rather, it is a disease with a variety of causes and a wide range of symptoms. The likelihood that an individual will be affected by a dementing disorder increases with age, but this does not mean that it is inevitable.
Alzheimer's disease and stroke-associated or multi-infarct-dementia, which together account for 85 per cent. of all the incurable dementing illnesses, should be diagnosed only after the exclusion, by a series of tests, of other causes of the problem, such as poor nutrition, metabolic disorders, side effects of drugs, chronic alcohol abuse and so on. Diagnosis of AD, with all its catastrophic implications for both sufferer and family, is too often made without adequate investigation.
It is late and we have had a long day, but I would not be doing full justice to the sufferers of Alzheimer's disease, and more importantly to those who will suffer in future, if I did not to some extent underline the problems by referring to case histories. It would, of course be wrong in any way to identify the affected people. In one instance a man aged 38 —Mr. D, a qualified architect with a large well-known company — contemplated group and individual suicide on learning that he had AD. His wife is totally unable to cope with the change in her family life. That is an unusual and rare case, because it affects someone in a younger age group. Normally, the disease is found in older people. Obviously, the greatest stress affects not only the sufferers but their loved ones.
I have a short letter that I wish to place on record. It states:
I am very sorry but your wife has Alzheimer's Disease. Unfortunately there is no cure. A lot of care will be needed.
A simple statement.
I had stopped work because I could not cope. My wife had shown a lack of interest in household affairs which was quite out of character. After a few months she lost the ability to carry out the most simple household tasks. Any attempt to teach anew was met with anger and tears. Dressing became very difficult, but when assistance was given, she replied with anger and not thanks. This was very perplexing after years of close relationship.
As the disease had progressed, toilet and bathing became a problem. The use of the toilet was forgotten, and I had to insist on regular visits. When assisting with the removal of clothing

extreme anger was displayed. The problem is worse when a wife is required to deal with her husband; the stronger and aggressive male usually wins, making the toilet problem a nightmare.
My efforts to see to my wife in the bath were frantically resisted. Hair washing was a particular problem, and rinsing off shampoo was rewarded with screams as the water flowed over her face. This was a very frightening experience and had to be handled with care. Toilet problems were at their worst when away from home. My wife quite often entered the conveniences and refused to allow anyone to help her to use the toilet, usually with disastrous results.
Such events continue until finally the person ebbs away and dies. That report was written not by an emotional, unrealistic person, but by a senior police officer who had to retire from the police force to look after his wife in this sad and demented state.
The cause of this condition is not known. It is only after a person has died, when there is a post-mortem, that it can be shown absolutely for sure that he has suffered from Alzheimer's disease, but the likelihood is that when the symptoms manifest themselves, the person has begun on a course that ultimately results in death.
There is the mild period, followed by the moderate period, followed by the severe period. The average length of life after the disease has been diagnosed is about two and a half to five years. Some people have been known to live longer, but that means that the deteriorating period is more severe and, equally, that the strain on those responsible for the individual's care is even greater.
In Cleveland, in my constituency, we have today a branch of the Alzheimer's Disease Society which is working wonders in providing a form of adult creche to enable those suffering from the dementia to be brought in and looked after on a daily basis, thereby enabling the carers themselves to have time off, for surely when the disease strikes one member of the family it equally strikes another.
I have known of people who have suffered from dementia and have seen for myself how they have deteriorated and died in a most miserable way. Twelve months ago, before I came to this House, I had never heard of Alzheimer's disease and did not know what it was. It has only recently been brought to my attention. During the past week, since my name appeared for an Adjournment debate on the subject, I have been spoken to by many colleagues, some with knowledge of relatives who have suffered and died from Alzheimer's disease, and others who were totally unaware of what the disease was and what its manifestations caused. It is because of that latter group of people that I have taken the opportunity of an Adjournment debate to bring to a wider audience the need for an understanding of it.
Everyone in society today, I believe, understands what multiple sclerosis is and what the initials MS stand for, and can recognise symptoms in people and know the care that is required. Regrettably, there has been far too much confusion historically between the normal ageing process and Alzheimer's disease, to such an extent that we as a society have failed so far to provide sufficient care, to obtain sufficient knowledge, or to do sufficient research into the subject.
I do not make a special plea for additional funds and resources for Alzheimer's disease over and above the many other worthy causes which require as much funding as they can be given, but I urge upon the Government, upon all hon. Members of this House, and upon people beyond this House, a greater understanding and awareness of the problem. It is one which can and will affect as many


as one in 10 of our population. We have an aging population. Therefore, the manifestations will become greater. It is an incurable disease as things stand at the moment. Research is being carried out and many people are now turning their attention to seeing whether there is any way in which there can be a diagnosis in the first instance and a cure in the second. But until such time as either of those things come to pass, it is incumbent upon us to make sure that all people become more widely aware of the problems of Alzheimer's disease and the associated problems for the people who have to care for those who are suffering from that disease.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. John Patten): I welcome the opportunity presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) to discuss a very important topic of which I think society is becoming increasingly aware. The fact that my hon. Friend has raised the issue on the Adjournment gives me the opportunity, first, to outline the action that the Government are taking in this area; secondly, to indicate some ways in which research is proceeding towards the common goal of us both, the hope of a cure for senile dementia; and, thirdly, to look at the important work being done by voluntary organisations in this field, in particular the work of the Alzheimer's Disease Society. My hon. Friend has a branch of that excellent society in his constituency as I have in mine.
It is important for us all to realise that the disease is not only a dementia; it can also derive from circulatory strokes of one form or another. But, however the dementias are derived, they are all characterised by progressive impairment of the higher brain function, leading to a deterioration in memory, in intellectual function, and in social behaviour. These are some of the things to which my hon. Friend referred in some of the moving extracts in letters from his constituents that he read. There is also deterioration in emotional control and in visual and motor skills. These symptoms are brought about by progressive and irreversible damage to the brain, as my hon. Friend said. Most of us will know from personal family experience—either our own families or those of our friends — and from our constituency postbags how terribly damaging the consequences of this form of dementia can be for the families of those who care, often in the home, for the suffering from Alzheimer's disease. We also know how terribly damaging the consequences can be on the sufferer himself, or, more commonly, herself, because most of the very elderly population are women, as are those looking after the sufferer.
Alzheimer's disease, with other conditions involving senile dementia, is one of the major challenges that we have to face both in the National Health Service and in the social services in the next 20 or 30 years. My hon. Friend will already know that the load of age-related disease has increased enormously, particularly in the past 20 years. For dementia, our best estimate is that the load will continue to increase at about the same rate until the end of the century, when it will probably level off. We shall require a rapid response to a rapidly growing problem.
This problem was not clearly understood or identified until the late 1960s or early 1970s. Since the beginning of

the 1970s, there has been a rapid development. Then, most local authorities no longer saw the care of demented people as a task for their residential provision. The new generic social workers of the day similarly put this low among their priorities. In the NHS, mental illness hospitals were providing a growing number of beds for long-stay care of the elderly, but here, too, it was regarded as a routine and rather unwelcome and unstimulating task. The philosophy of the day was that there was not much that could be done for patients who were termed psychogeriatric. All that was needed was the greenhouse philosophy of keeping them well watered, fed and warm until they died. Therefore, they received little medical attention, and the NHS offered little other then long-stay inpatient care.
In the early 1970s things began to improve. Some psychiatrists turned their attention to devoting their care and skill to this group of patients. It became clear that the best form of service was not restricted to those who were receiving inpatient care. Those occupying the beds in hospitals — long-stay residential care — formed only a tiny proportion of those who might be at risk from dementia in its progressive and most disturbing and distressing forms, as was rapidly realised.
The task of the psychogeriatric service today is to provide support and advice to all those in need through domiciliary visits by psychiatrists and community psychiatric nurses and drawing on the help of social service departments, which have taken an increasing interest in these matters.
Since 1979, we have regarded improvements in services for the elderly as a top priority, and, with the help of the Health Advisory Service, we published last year the important document "The Rising Tide". That report was the product of a detailed survey that enabled the HAS to set out models of good practice to be followed by health and local authorities everywhere. To hasten the task of bringing all services up to the level of the best, my noble Friend Lord Trefgarne, who was then Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Security, launched what one might call a competition by providing central funds to enable every regional health authority to have a demonstration development district as an example of how to make progress.
There have been some remarkable responses to this challenge. I am happy to tell the House that most districts have put forward to their regional health authorities plans for progress in this area. Many which did not receive the central funding available under the scheme announced by my noble Friend nevertheless have gone forward using their own local funds, and quite rightly, because for too long in the National Health Service we have devoted a disproportionate amount of our expenditure to hospitals. We have not spent enough on the priority groups among other calls on our funds. The elderly, and especially the demented elderly, deserve special consideration.
The plans which have been produced are for local community-based services in which the same teams of professonal staff—social workers as well as NHS staff —can provide care for patients in whatever ways suit the patients best, whether at home, in residential care or in hospitals as the patients' needs change.
It is heartening to be able to say—10 years ago it would not have been possible to report this—that there seems to be no difficulty in interesting able psychiatrists to take up the psychiatry of old age and to accept special


responsibility for elderly patients. Equally, psychiatric nursing is becoming an increasingly popular specialty both in the community and in longer-stay frameworks. We welcome that change.
Suddenly, we see a picture where services, albeit imperfectly developed as yet, are beginning to develop to meet the need which is likely to become more pressing over the next 20 or 30 years. There are glimmers of hope. The picture is not dark, and my hon. Friend's speech was full of hope.
Recently, I read a book published by my noble Friend Lord Vaizey entitled "National Health". On page 67 he refers to the problems that society faces from senile dementia. I quote directly from the book, because it is a very important passage. Lord Vaizey writes:
Senile confusion and dementia are partly the result of other (often undiagnosed) conditions; depression, for example, is often the cause of confusion. Once the primary condition has been treated, the apparent confusion is reduced. There are now also specific pharmaceuticals which will treat directly the process of senile confusion and possibly dementia itself. Thus one of the curses of old age, a sort of gentle and occasionally violent pottiness, is amenable to treatment. So, too, is the other curse, incontinence. Most people are aware that colostomies can be treated by means of a bag, but the use of catheters, which now often lead to infection, will be much improved, as will other techniques. The distress of incontinence may well be substantially alleviated as a result. Thus looking after the elderly will be not only a challenge but also an opportunity, having little to do with 'medicine' itself, as conventionally understood, but a great deal to do with the social arrangements made to cope with their problems.
There is a great deal of truth in what my noble Friend says.
In all this, research is critically important. I am glad to say that the topic of senile dementia is now attracting a good deal of research interest. The Medical Research Council is currently funding research at its brain metabolism unit in Edinburgh, at its neurochemical pharmacology unit in Cambridge and at its cyclotron unit at Hammersmith hospital. If the MRC researchers or some other researchers succeed in future years in unravelling the

complicated anomalies of brain chemistry which seem to be at the heart of the problem, it may well be possible to develop some form of remedy, rather as we can already compensate for the chemical deficiencies which cause diabetes. Today that is no more than a hope. Tomorrow, perhaps within the next 10 years, that hope may turn to reality. Meanwhile, less fundamental research can help us to find the best ways of caring for patients.
In that context there is the growing and invaluable work of the Alzheimer's Disease Society, which I am glad that my hon. Friend mentioned. It is a comparatively young body, unlike the disease, but it is doing valuable work, particularly in the counselling and support that it is able to give to families who face this serious problem. It is our duty to do what we can to care for the carers and not simply to leave it to statutory services. I am sure that my hon. Friend will be glad to know that the Alzheimer's Disease Society is one of the bodies which we centrally fund under section 64 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968.
I welcome the opportunity that my hon. Friend has given us to discuss this important subject. The name may be new, but the problem is old. It is just that we are now able to identify it much more easily than we were before. The name is not just a new fashion. Research in the past 10 years has made it clear that we are not talking about an inevitable last stage in the human lifespan. We are talking about a disease and the NHS and medical science are searching for cures for such diseases. Senile dementia is not some inevitable progression in the ageing process. It can, should and must eventually be reversible. We must work through research to prevent its ravages and we must in the meantime do all that we can to provide the best care to those who are suffering its ravages now.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes to Three o' clock.